Date: 3/10/2002
These are my notes from the EthicsOfVideo meeting in raw form.
Be precise about what you mean about ethics. - Not simply about ethics, there are methodological issues mixed up in there. => e.g. taking things out of context - everything is like that.
Video Card Game
- group mentality
- 2 people responsible for taking the clips
--are these methodological issues?
Consequentialism/Deontologicalism. Is Consequentialism more appropriate? ( in keeping with a phenomenological stance, allows for new & unforseen uses of video ).
Is there a degree to which you want to make subjects feel comfortable, e.g. by eliding how much analysis you'll put in. => Not that you think it's trivial but that you don't want to make them feel like you're scrutinising them.
- You can't be sure what you'll use the video for.
Importance of aligning ourselves with users. We go back & show what we've done. - "Just be honest".
Post-hoc explanation. => Didn't want to influence the subject.
Getting feedback from people will enrich your method. -> gives them a chance to say "That's not what I meant".
They're not under scrutiny, but the tape is later.
Some of these things are not ethical but methodological guidelines -> The methodology should grow out of the ethical base.
Methodological limitations.
When you're 'in the moment' of taping you don't thing about the ethical issues.
Take ownership of those problems. Record them in your journal.
"Wrong Audience"...very difficult to predict.
Electricians in a usablility lab. Asking them to do something, but they can't do a 'professional' enough job. It was totally different outcome on-site.
Straus ( sp? ) mouse. Using executive's hands to demonstrate how users commonly mis-use a mouse. - "Dramatisation".
Time - time constraints will always be a huge problem.
--Briefing beforehand?
--Checklist? - 10 things to promote reflection. ( evil uses of this technology ).
Consent - what are they consenting to?
-Informed consent, -- usability lab.
Data can travel a long way, e.g. flowmeter assembly.
Using names in paper? - Creates empathy, so what would the ethical issues be?
-Anything that gets published should go back to them for approval.
--This is a really good way of maintaining dialog, stimulating them, getting good feedback. It can only enrich your research.
The operators start to reflect on their own process. They start to learn from us as well as us learning from them.
If we know we're writing for them we stay more sensitive?
I'd rather write what I think and censor later.
Is it something you'd like to use in your research, ( e.g a power relationship )? What's your intention? Would you like to change it?
Opinion in analysis. Judgements.
Okay - keep note of your opinions, be cognisant of them.
You can still say things, just using sensitive language. Be honest and allow them room to deny it. 'The right of reply'.
Use the suggested guidelines but recouch them into categories like;
- your relationship with participants
- your relationship with video itself
- your relationship with research
Nicer to use the statements from the paper as questions. ( Consequentialism ). Raise awareness of issues in yourself.
"Undue Influence." What was the ethical issue here?
- That Harry was using 'objective science' to push his personal opinion.
Program about intuition.
Organisational issues.
- Checklist, -- evolve the checklist. - Organisational learning.
How do we evolve the checklist?
- Monthly meeting?
- Reflection
- Include it in group meetings
- Wiki page?
|
[ListAllPages] |