Saturday, November 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Things I learned at IR9…(or how I spent my fall vacation)
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.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
The Ethics of Cyber “Citizen Journalism”
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.
Monday, March 6, 2006
AEJMC Conference Paper
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?