Those who have met me know I have vowed never to go on the record on this board about anything.
noted. seems to protect you as much as anyone, but i understand the sentiment nonetheless.
I made an announcement as such at a dinner table filled with flaggers once and that was actually respected by those people who have met me IRL since nothing was ever mentioned in writing or in public (gossip perhaps...like the real source of this "issue") during this time because people respected both my wishes and saw that I did not act contradictory to my promise, nor will I start now.
That's great kurt. but I'm sorry that you continue to misunderstand what this about. whether I believe jaegar's story or not, (and all unverified/unverifiable information he shares/claims about the tens of flaggers he names, including: vlindsay (not a real research participant, a researcher who needed to abide by certain ethical standards), jaegar, penta, svizzerams, moosehead, kurt, mikethehack, Pam, Rickshaw, Naveen, and others) is not the issue. Not only is it, like I said, filled with unverifiable information, but also his drama with Dr. V is also only tangentially connected to the thesis and not really my huge concern.
Since you are not trained in ethics, as you repeatedly point out, you may not understand the seriousness of any allegation which undermines Dr. V's claim to avoiding role conflict, not going native, and ultimately protecting the privacy and the rights of the research participants. My original complaint in the TFHC forum predated jaegar's release of his story by several days if not weeks at least. When my light-hearted concerns were met with indifference, scorn, and stonewalling, you all piqued my interest and ire.
So yes Jaegar's story is truly a juicy read. It is available to anyone who wants it and many already have it. But ultimately I don't have to prove 99% of the lurid details of his story are true to determine whether the conduct of Dr. V's research was correct. I only need to compare what vlindsay claims in the thesis versus what is on the record of happening and what people will go on record for having happened.
Some of those rules (green) and claims (red) include, from the DR. V's BFC thesis:
Kerr and Hiltz (1982) note two main dangers in computer-mediated participant observation: going native and role conflict. The fact that I had visited Afghanistan assisted in establishing credibility but it also increased the risk of going native, which is defined generally as when a researcher “identif[ies] so closely with one’s subjects [thatone] inadvertently skews his description and analysis of the world being portrayed” (Monti 1992, p.326). Within computer-mediated communication, going native is described as “involving oneself in the group to the extent that objectivity is lost” (Paccagnella 1997, p.6) to the point of negatively influencing behaviour both in the field and in data analysis(Monti 1992). Within an online forum it is difficult to distinguish between participating and becoming the phenomenon studied (Jorgensen 1989), as the researcher’s actions cannot be removed from the field without removing meaning from the data (Tedlock 1991).
Although a period of active participation (Adler and Adler 1987) was required to gain full membership of the group, this did not correspond with an equivalent emotional or physical involvement, so objectivity was maintained. Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) suggested that the researcher should attempt to become a marginal native. The nature of the research (periods of participant observation followed by data collection and analysis) meant that my participation in the forum could be scaled down during certain phases of the research, allowing me to step back from the forum and its participants to take a more dispassionate view.
Role conflict is described as the conflict between the goals of the group and those of the research or researcher (Kerr and Hiltz 1982) and the potential for ethical conflicts between the group’s possibly illegal activities and the views of the researcher (Lee 1993). The subject of distressing and illegal activities is explored in Section 3.12.4. The development of a research protocol (Appendix 12.1), which ensured a professional as opposed to deeply personal involvement within the forum, also assisted me in maintaining my distance from the forum members.
I actually have a much longer list, as claims of navigating ethical dilemmas are peppered throughout. These happen to be the ones I already previous noted in the TFHC before jaegar had released any email or anyone had contacted me about their side of the drama - a drama which I had no idea potentially involved so many people and on the face of it runs the risk of compromising Dr. V's entire thesis and completion of her degree.
But maybe my gut here is wrong and maybe within all this mess the thesis and its research have remained untainted. I think we will find out.
So like I told all of those banned when offers of their perspectives came in via facebook: Kurt, I would love to hear your side. A blog posting, a private message, an email, whatever would be great. All the juicy details are not really my business, but a summary of events and the nature of your relationship might make it easier to verify whether Dr. V did or did not fulfill all her ethical obligations while conducting research on the BFC. If you care about your vow or yourself or those implicated more than you care about the truth and possible wrongdoing, I cannot fault you. But you're only doing yourself a disservice as well as the people here at the BFC who relied upon you and Robert to look out for their interests as participants.
