Response to Readings on Ethics & Research Methods on the Internet

I appreciated this week’s readings as they helped me understand the theoretical fire-hose placed in my mouth by our Second Life reading last week and prepared me for my own Virtual World proposal. Boellstorff et. al. ground really strong methodological foci on creating a virtual anthropologic study (and honestly any good anthropological research investigation).  The author’s write, “Ethnography may be adapted but it is still purposive” (Boellstorff et. al. 2012: 54). They argue that a research project/question must contain (1) emergence (2) relevance and (3).  I appreciated the description on relevance because it framed the push of anthropological theory into the first part of Second Life. Understanding the “why does this matter piece?” really helps ground virtual anthropology as anthropology and connects it to “larger literatures, frameworks, and sets of concerns”; thus, in some ways allowing anthropology to be more interdisciplinary.

            A good research question is the foundation of a good ethnographic research project, even when considering new founded territory like virtual worlds. It seems that Boellstorff and his colleagues are really focused on “gaming” virtual worlds (Second Life, World of Warcraft, There.com, etc) and not necessarily social media, care/support/blog forums, or dating websites which some of us may be more interested in. Do these same principles and concerns relate to these “virtual worlds”?  I think another important aspect brought up in this article is how to leverage offline contexts.  The authors noted that it is important to take note of the physical world socialites that influence virtual worlds and to designate which or both you are studying. Moreover, I think it was insightful to mention that anthropology is not just about differences; and that it’s okay to show a comparative analysis and find that things that groups, cultures, and people have in common.

            “Ethical Decision Making in Internet Research” was a good summary of recommendations for Internet research. I appreciate that the recommendation acknowledged that because this field is so new that ethical considerations must be made at every stage of research. It’s not always as clean as simply doing completing an IRB review at the beginning of the research.  Some of the endorsements sound like “no brainers” but some were really stick and not clear-cut.  For example one Internet ethical question was: Does the research definition of the context match the way owners, users, or members might define it? In parenthesis it suggest public texts and I thought of Tweets. Are tweets public texts? I remember watching Good Morning America and 106 & Park and it shows people’s tweets if they reference a topic or @ the media outlet. Do they have permission to use these tweets on TV and moreover use my hashtag name?  According to Lothar Determann’s article it’s a myth to even consider that I own personal data about myself but what if I didn't want my tweet on TV? Naturally, because of my interest I chose to read about Naming and Privacy Online. After reading Boyd’s blog post I would like to discuss if the naming and privacy issues stem from wanting to protect marginalized peoples like she lists. She wrote, “What’s even more noticeable in my data is that an extremely high percentage of people of color used pseudonyms as compared to the white teens that I interviewed” Why is this? I think it would be interesting to look deeper into the racial and socio-economic parameters that may affect naming and online privacy.