Saturday, November 22, 2008

Best of NCA 2008 Day 1

I just wanted to use this post to highlight some of the key points from the first day/day zero of the National Communication Assoication 94th Annual Convention in San Diego.

1.) Follow the Boy Scout rule, “Be Prepared”: I had every intention of keep a hard core Twitter stream with the little tidbits of wisdom I picked up from the conference. However, there were three times when one of the presenters were not prepared and failed to have the correct dongle for their MacBook. So, my computer was used as a presentation computer. I am not mad at those who borrowed my computer. I was more the happy to help out those who needed the equipment. However, I would encourage all of the people who are presenting for the first time at a major conference to have the correct adapters to power your compute and hook up to a VCA cord or and HDMI cord.

2.) Planners are the key to any conference: I found out exactly the role of the planner as I will be one next year. I salute those who came before me and dread the work I have to do.

3.) The virtual representation of the self/community/point of interest will be a key topic for the next couple of years: Many of the panels that I went to during the first day really had this common thread interwoven into their respective papers/roundtables. Guerilla marketing, cyberterrorism, citizen journalism, nonverbal communication, future mapping and the interdisciplinary model of education all dealt with some level of virtual representation online. I was very impressed with the scholars I heard from today and look forward to reading their work in the future.

4. “Communication and the Future” is a wide open playground: I am also very excited at the level of scholarship that was brought into the field this year and hope this trend continue.

I was hoping to have more issues dealing with truly cyberstudies as opposed to the metaissues I was dealing with today. But, I am way too tired to write any more and I’m got an early morning tomorrow. Good night.
Posted by Tilton at 02:24:13 | Permalink | No Comments »

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Things I learned at IR9…(or how I spent my fall vacation)

First of all, the Association of Internet Researchers held an amazing conference this year at the IT University of Copenhagen. The building is truly an architectural work of art and is a wonderful compliment to the learning that occurs in this institution. I feel that sharing what I’ve learned during the conference is my small way of showing thanks and also fulfilling the role of the public academic as I want to shine a light on the knowledge gathered from #ir9.

1.) If you are going to travel to an international conference, make sure that you either are talking from a script or have a well-structured outline/Powerpoint combo.

I fell into the classic trap of “gee, I done my fifteen minute speech about my work. I can just wing it.” I experimented with a loose Keynote presentation, that didn’t work when I got there. So, I tried to do the “unplugged” version of the show. YUCK! The jetlag kicked in 10 minutes into the presentation and my train of thought got derailed. Next time, next time…

2.) Don’t be afraid of being exposed to new methods, new techniques or even throwing yourself into roles in which you are not comfortable.

There were sessions at the end of the conference called “Birds of a Feather” or BoaF, which were designed to be informal get-togethers. I volunteered to run one on microblogging. Then, I went to Dr. Johns to ask him what exactly I got myself into. He explained and I felt a little less nervous. It could be as simple as researchers coming together to exchange business cards, then leaving. I could be as complex as a three hour rehashing of issues in the field. Thankfully, it was in the middle. We had an hour long breakdown of microblogging. There was first an exchanging of Twitter names and other microblogging profiles. Next, there was a strong discussion of the state of microblogging research. Then came the onological, epistemological and praxis issues surrounding microblogging. Finally, there was the long look of future research in the field. It was an amazing experience, capping of an already amazing conference.

With the two “meta-issues” out of the way, it seems appropriate to discuss some of the strings of thought that seemed to run through the entire conference:

3.) The “remediation” of common culture into the new adaption of technology is an issue that is being dealt with and will continue to be dealt with by those in and outside of the academic discipline.

The three keynote addresses of the conference seemed to have this common theme. Dr. Mimi Ito approached this theme through her discussion of internet-driven communities. She especially hit on this theme in her examples dealing with the communities surrounding the creation of Anime Music Videos or AMV. Dr. Rich Ling hit on this point, despite several unfortunate choice of words, with his discussion around the domestication of communication technologies and the “for granted…ness” of the general public regarding the significance of processing a wireless phone, a car or other mass accessable technology. Dr. Steven Graham finalized the point with his lecture “Competing Logics of Emerging Sentient Urban Spaces” and how government agency are struggling to find the balance between the technological ability to “keep us safe” and the private/public needs of the urbanized citizen.

4.) Social network analysis was a really popular method of research.

With all due respect those using this method, I glad I’m using Hine’s work on “Virtual Ethnography” in combination with J.A. Barnes’ original work on “Social Networks” for my dissertation’s theoretical/methodological framework. It seems we as an academic discipline maybe over using the method as a point of analysis. However, the outside academic disciplines may not care or even worry about this repeated use of a method.

5.) Microblogging was/is/will be a powerful tool in this conference.

I found that Twitter kept a wonderful public record of the conference. I already compiling the data from the Twitter post and will present a paper at next year’s IR conference regarding Twitter’s role as a public academic. (I called it first)

6.) Finally, Randall Munroe is in my head.

Enough said.

Posted by Tilton at 18:30:43 | Permalink | No Comments »

Sunday, April 30, 2006

The Ethics of Cyber “Citizen Journalism”

One of my colleagues recently held a panel on the impact of “citizen journalism” on the mainstream media. This panel began a discussion led to ethics of citizen journalism and what influence the ethics code of journalists would have on this new breed of journalism. This topic turned to the three key issues that has fueled and will continue to fuel the growth in this field; exposure, equipment, and exchange of funds. As long as there is a distribution method available for these journalists, as long as technology is made portable and affordable for the general public, and as long there is a market for information, there will be an influx of citizen journalism. News organizations, as mentioned my friend, will need to overlay the ethical values of their organization in order to air the submissions.

However, the question that I wish to pose is what ethical standards should cyber “citizen journalist” follow? Should they mimic their professional brethren and follow the code established for them (e.g. http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp), follow a personal set of beliefs or perhaps something in the middle? I would think the best bit of advice to this group would be to follow a tenement of the medical field, do no harm.

Posted by Tilton at 05:58:43 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Monday, March 6, 2006

AEJMC Conference Paper

Posted by Tilton at 00:00:44 | Permalink | No Comments »

Sunday, January 22, 2006

U.S. v Elcomsoft Part I: Significance

For a paper I’m working on for a conference, I will be discussing for the next several weeks, the case of U.S. v Elcomsoft and how it relates to “modern” cyberculture.

U.S. v Elcomsoft is significant for five reasons. The first being that it was the first direct challenge to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). A few cases before this one challenge aspects of the case (e.g. Fenton v RIAA, which challenged the RIAA ability to use the DMCA to prevent research), but none challenge the act in whole. This case also challenged the constitutionality of the act under the first and fifth amendments. Second, the case calls into question the accessibility of end-products, with regards to the flexibility of manipulation of the end-product. This is especially relevant to handicap accessibility (Section 508 laws) and direct ownership of end-products. Third, U.S. v Elcomsoft was originally Adobe v Elcomsoft. The U.S. government took over the role as plaintiff after Adobe withdrew from the case. Adobe wanted to drop the case, the U.S. government refused this request. Therefore, this case calls into question the role of the creator of intelligential products in criminal and civil actions, and who can supercede those rights. Fourth, it attempts to defend the ideal of computer programs being a form of language. The question that came from this discussion is if a computer program is a “perfect work”, that is the program should not be edited or can the program be decoded and read by interested parties? The last, and perhaps broadest argument for the relevance for this case is the implications for international media law. Many of these laws were created before the advent of the Internet and digital distribution. How will the DMCA influence and affect other countries’ media laws or the cooperation between countries?

Posted by Tilton at 17:51:40 | Permalink | Comments (2)