<$BlogRSDURL$>
Christina's LIS Rant
Sunday, December 09, 2007
  Blogger's ethics revisited
Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research Commentary on: Kuhn, M. (2007). Interactivity and prioritizing the human: A code of blogging ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(1), 18-36. DOI:10.1080/08900520701315244

I attended an early BloggerCon and have been blogging for quite a while, but I've never had any desire to be a citizen journalist. Blogging ethics commonly cited are precisely for getting your voice heard in the political or journalistic sphere (e.g., Blood, 2002)-- not a goal of most bloggers, I would say.
This article points out that previous efforts have omitted many other functions of blogs, including one to one communication and small group formation (p. 20).

LIS bloggers, science bloggers, and other bloggers have had to craft their personal ethics from trial and error to a certain extent, or through norms of behavior in other communication media. Indeed, one could argue that blogs are merely a format so that any idea of a common code of ethics is misguided and that ethics based on function, place in the information ecosystem, and purpose are appropriate.

The author's purpose in this article is to "suggest a broader code of blogging ethics that recognizes interactivity and maintains a human element in CMC as core values. It is based on a combination of values and duties that have emerged from new communication technology ethics scholarship and an exploratory survey of bloggers" (p. 21). As the blogosphere becomes more crowded, even bloggers with a more narrow focus and targeted audience will be tempted to perhaps do some sketchy things to get noticed.

The author develops some requirements for a code of ethics based on recent scholarship in CMC:
Research methods: the author created a "survey blog" where he received comments on how practicing bloggers view ethics. He received 114 comments from 28 bloggers -- whoa! Very small sample for a survey. The survey was open in December 2004 and January 2005. Questions came from Rawls (views of stakeholders), Ross (values), and Kant (are there certain things bloggers must always do to be good bloggers).

My take: these seem like really good questions, and ones that are worth answering, but the sample size is too small (unjustifiably). The scope should have been narrowed (what do x-type of bloggers think about...?) and/or the number of responses should have been in the thousands -- doing this on a blog must have seemed attractive, but was not appropriate to be able to gather the necessary data and then use it for later analysis. Otherwise, a qualitative study with this many participants (purposively selected), but who were given the opportunity to reflect on and provide more interesting information on ethics could be very informative.

Additionally, inadequate information is given on analysis methods used (oh, and no mention of human subjects protection?). In fact, it appears that the analysis was simply to count responses.

In a nutshell: an interesting idea, with decent grounding in the literature, but with inadequate execution.


Other Works Cited:
Blood, R. (2002). The weblog handbook practical advice on creating and maintaining your blog. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub.
 
Comments:
Hello Christina,

You are dead on. It seemed attractive and the sample was far too small. I see your point in narrowing the scope of the study to only one type of blogger, but I think it would be subjective/arbitrary to attempt to define blogger categories in a journal article. I had very little time to initiate and complete the study and even less to personally participate in the dialogue (ironic eh?). Had I the time, I would redo this study and "host" the survey blog for a period of one year . . . all the while engaging other bloggers on the topic of blog ethics.

Thank you for taking the time to read and critique my code.

All the best,
Martin
 
Post a Comment


Links to this post:

Create a Link

Powered by Blogger

This is my blog on library and information science. I'm into Sci/Tech libraries, special libraries, personal information management, sci/tech scholarly comms.... My name is Christina Pikas and I'm a librarian in a physics, astronomy, math, computer science, and engineering library. I'm also a doctoral student at Maryland. Any opinions expressed here are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or CLIS. You may reach me via e-mail at cpikas {at} gmail {dot} com.

Site Feed (ATOM)

Add to My Yahoo!

Creative Commons License
Christina's LIS Rant by Christina K. Pikas is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

Christina Kirk Pikas

Laurel , Maryland , 20707 USA
Most Recent Posts
-- One pretty successful way to record telephone inte...
-- Hey cool, picture chosen for schmap
-- Musings on categories...
-- Rant
-- Downloadable OA Calendar
-- Nice summary on the leaky pipeline in science
-- IM=Interruption Management?
-- Learning "studying up"...
-- Commentary on: The persistence of behavior and fo...
-- I'm not AL, either
ARCHIVES
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 / 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 / 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 / 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 / 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 / 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 / 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 / 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 / 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 / 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 / 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 / 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 / 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 / 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 / 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 / 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 / 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 / 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 / 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 / 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 / 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 / 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 / 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 / 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 / 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 / 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 / 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 / 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 / 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 / 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 / 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 / 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 / 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 / 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 / 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 / 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 / 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 / 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 / 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 / 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 / 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 / 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 / 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 / 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 / 08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010 /

Some of what I'm scanning

Locations of visitors to this page

Search this site
(gigablast)

(google api)
How this works

Where am I?

N 39 W 76