Organizers
Ben Light and Marie Griffiths – University of Salford
Sian Lincoln – Liverpool John Moores University
Steve Sawyer – Syracuse University

Confirmed Speakers
Professor Susanna Paasonen
Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies – University of Helsinki
Grabbing by the eyeballs: affective intensities of online porn
Dr Kylie Jarrett
Centre for Media Studies – National University of Ireland Manooth
Managing the multiples:
understanding the power of google

There is still negotiation regarding the novelty of Web 2.0 and social media.  Yet, whether these arrangements are ‘new’ or recombinants/re-presentations of extant things, it is very much the case that in many societies, those that would not have engaged with such arrangements in the past are, and that different sites of such arrangements are becoming easier to connect with each other.  Thus, we are increasingly faced with the issue of having to navigate multiple places across and connected with the Internet.  Unsurprisingly, those in commercial and other formal organizations are also making these connections too.  This year we hope the workshop will tackle issues associated with the multi-sited nature of digital culture.  However, as usual, we intend for the workshop to be multi-disciplinary in nature, broad in the approaches participants take and issues they cover. If your work is about any aspect of digital culture, this is the workshop for you! The following are thus only indicative of potential topics that could be raised:

• What kinds of sites/spaces are being connected and why?
• How does identity feature in multi-sitedness?
• How does multi-sitedness feature in our knowledge and experiences of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and disability?
• What are the problems and benefits of convergence?
• What role are mobile and ubiquitous computing technologies playing in multi-sitedness?
• How are commercial and non-commercial artifacts, digital games/TV/Radio/newsprint for example, being situated within and across physical and virtual spaces?

Following from the first workshop we continue to see this workshop having three purposes. First, we seek to give voice and structure to existing digital media, ICT and technology related research which may not readily sit within conventionally accepted areas. Second, we wish to draw in research on new forms of digital technology, ICT, computing, organizing and social interactions. Third, we want to continue discussions regarding potential futures for ICT related research, which combine research as related to the evolving forms and functions of organizations and the changing boundaries and relations between these organizations and their social milieus.

Workshop Arrangements
The fee for presentation/attendance at the workshop is £80. This will cover refreshments and meals throughout the workshop and a dinner to be held on the evening of the 1 July.

There is no fee for PhD students, however they still need to register for the workshop. PhD student registration includes refreshments during the workshop but excludes attendance at the workshop dinner (This is subject to a £25 fee, payable upon registration).

You can register for the workshop at: https://shop.salford.ac.uk

The workshop is being held in association with the Innovation Bazaar details of which can be found here: http://www.isos.salford.ac.uk/innovation_bazaar.php

Location of the workshop
The workshop will be held at CUBE.

CUBE (Centre for the Urban Built Environment) is an architecture centre and a member of the Architecture Centre Network. Located in the city centre of Manchester on Portland Street, it occupies a 500m2 gallery and seminar space. The remit of CUBE is to create and promote understanding of the built environment through activities including exhibitions, events, debates, educational projects and publications.

If you experience any difficulties regarding the workshop arrangements, please do get in touch with Deborah Woodman: d.woodman@salford.ac.uk

Presentations Include:

• Vicki Trowler – University of Cape Town – South Africa
  Political promiscuity and multi-modality
• Phoebe Moore – University of Salford – UK
  Was it an internet election?
• Helen Keegan and Frances Bell – University of Salford – UK
  Multiple spaces and discontinuities as transformative tools
• Daniel Villar Onrubia – University of Oxford – UK
  Mobility – personal learning environments – and the use of space in higher education
• Carolyn Downs – University of Salford – UK
  Growing up in a virtual world: girls – identity and facebook
• David Kreps – University of Salford – UK
  Grindr: immoderation vs sin in the global virtual gay bar
• Saeideh Hajinejad – Stockholm University – Sweden
  Gender representation of iranian youth on facebook profile pictures
• Isis Amelie Hjorth – University of Oxford – UK
  Analysing distributed agency in collaborative open source film making: towards a theoretical framework suitable for multisited ethnographies on networked creators and cultures
• Enas Al-Lozi and Anastasia Papazafeiropoulou – Brunel University – UK
  “And why would i participate?” a framework of value exchange and roles in digitally engaged communities
• Rachel mclean – University of Bolton – David Wainwright – University of Northumbria and Jeff McCarthy – Manchester Metropolitan University
  Football social media:  playing the game – but where is the trust?
• Chris Bull – Manchester Metropolitan University – UK
  Multiplicity – congruity and the development of e-gambling commerce in the uk
• Nic Crowe – University of Brunel – UK
  “We die for the glory of the emperor”: young people and ‘playing’ at war in on-line role playing games
• Ben Light – University of Salford – UK
  Missing cultures across video games: queers – gaymers and the terms of their inclusion

University of Salford, UK.
1-2 July 2010

Organizers

Ben Light, Marie Griffiths and Gordon Fletcher -University of Salford, UK.
Steve Sawyer – Syracuse University, UK.
Sian Lincoln – Liverpool John Moores University, UK.

Confirmed Speakers

Professor Susanna Paasonen
Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies – University of Helsinki

Dr Kylie Jarrett
Centre for Media Studies – National University of Ireland Manooth

There is still negotiation regarding the novelty of Web 2.0 and social media.  Yet, whether these arrangements are ‘new’ or recombinants/re-presentations of extant things, it is very much the case that in many societies, those that would not have engaged with such arrangements in the past are, and that different sites of such arrangements are becoming easier to connect with each other.  Thus, we are increasingly faced with the issue of having to navigate multiple places across and connected with the Internet.  Unsurprisingly, those in commercial and other formal organizations are also making these connections too.  This year we hope the workshop will tackle issues associated with the multi-sited nature of digital culture.  However, as usual, we intend for the workshop to be multi-disciplinary in nature, broad in the approaches participants take and issues they cover. If your work is about any aspect of digital culture, this is the workshop for you! The following are thus only indicative of potential topics that could be raised:

• What kinds of sites/spaces are being connected and why?
• How does identity feature in multi-sitedness?
• How does multi-sitedness feature in our knowledge and experiences of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and disability?
• What are the problems and benefits of sociotechnical convergence?
• What roles are mobile and ubiquitous/pervasive computing technologies playing in multi-sitedness?
• How are commercial and non-commercial artifacts, digital games/TV/Radio/newsprint for example, being situated within and across physical and virtual spaces?

Following from the first two workshops we continue to see this workshop having three purposes. First, we seek to give voice and structure to existing digital media, ICT and technology related research which may not readily sit within conventionally accepted areas. Second, we wish to draw in research on new forms of digital technology, ICT, computing, organizing and social interactions. Third, we want to continue discussions regarding potential futures for ICT related research, which combine research as related to the evolving forms and functions of organizations and the changing boundaries and relations between these organizations and their social milieus.

We seek abstracts (of up to 600 words) that focus upon an aspect of digital culture. We hope to have a special issue of a journal associated with the workshop, as in the past.  A special issue of Information Technology and People will be published early in 2011 and this has attracted papers from the 2009 event.  Abstracts should be submitted to Ben Light at: b.light@salford.ac.uk

Important Dates

Abstract Submission Date:      31 May 2010
Notification of Acceptance:     6 June  2010
Workshop Dates:                   1 and 2 July 2010

Workshop Arrangements

The fee for presentation/attendance at the workshop is £80. This will cover refreshments and meals throughout the workshop and a workshop dinner to be held on the evening of the 1 July.

There is no fee for PhD students, however they still need to register for the workshop with Deborah Woodman (details below). PhD student registration includes refreshments during the workshop but excludes attendance at the workshop dinner (This is subject to a £25 fee, payable upon registration).

From Mid May 2010, you will be able to register for the workshop at: https://shop.salford.ac.uk

Location of the workshop

The workshop will be held at CUBE.  CUBE (Centre for the Urban Built Environment) is an architecture centre and a member of the Architecture Centre Network. Located in the city centre of Manchester on Portland Street, it occupies a 500m2 gallery and seminar space. The remit of CUBE is to create and promote understanding of the built environment through activities including exhibitions, events, debates, educational projects and publications.

If you experience any difficulties regarding the workshop arrangements, please do get in touch with Deborah Woodman: d.woodman@salford.ac.uk

Accommodation

Delegates should arrange their own accommodation with their preferred hotel.  Below are a few hotels in the area – we recommend staying in the centre of Manchester.

• Jurys Inn
• Midland Hotel
• Radisson Edwardian Hotel
• Ibis Hotel
• Premier Travel Inn
• Princess Hotel on Portland

I’ve got to meet some really nice people too the staff at Auckland are a great bunch and so interesting to talk to! So many suggestions and ideas and collaborations – no idea where I’ll find the time to get it all done. Plus, after my Gaydar talk, I got invited to meet the staff of the New Zealand AIDS foundation and got to talk about Gaydar and social media some more – they’re launching a new social networking site aimed educating people about ‘sex stuff’ and more www.broonline.nz It’ll be interesting to see how it pans out!

The SingStar talk has reawakened my interest in pushing the link between gaming and work that Gordon Fletcher and I tried to get into the IS community with little luck (although people in sociology and media both liked it). We have a paper on this so if you fancy a look, let me know – comments appreciated as to how we take it forward (if at all). Our argument, essentially, is that if we look at games like SingStar it can widen our view of technology use in ‘formal work’. Specifically in areas of user relations, collaboration practices and contexts of use.

The Gaydar work was pulling together the papers I have in EJIS, ITP, Information and Management and adding in (working through) ideas that I’ll be presenting properly at AOIR 10 in Milwaukee later in the year. Specifically – looking at the links between Gaydar and Facebook and the implications of this.

So, all in all, a really productive week!

Story 1: Wednesday night, I was at Piccadilly station picking up Sian Lincoln and Steve Sawyer (two of the organisers). My phone goes – it’s my Aunt. “Sorry, I know you have visitors and your really busy but this is Urgent – Keith (my uncle) has ordered 3,000 books on Amazon by accident.”

Story 2: A certain academic’s dad believes that when you change your laptop, you have to change your email address. The academic recently changed institutions and so got a new email account but kept his laptop. His father’s explanation for this – his new institution must have really great technical staff!

Story 3: Another academic that I know – his mum made everyone sit in the Kitchen and be quiet for 30 mins when they got their first VCR – she was recording Coronation Street and didn’t want the family’s conversations to be on the tape!

Story 4: My family clubbed together and got my partner (John) a Netbook for christmas. John and I were discussing how it’ll be useful for us to webcam with each other when he goes to Japan for the year late 2009. My Aunt (story 1) says “your quite a big man John, will all of you fit on it”

University of Salford, U.K.

Call for Participation

Organizers
Ben Light and Marie Griffiths, University of Salford
Sian Lincoln, Liverpool John Moores University
Steve Sawyer, Syracuse University
Keynote Speakers

• Mobile Technology at Work: Stories of Interaction Asymmetry
  Carsten Sørensen, Information Systems and Innovation Group, Department of Management, London School of Economics
• Prostitution, Prosecution and Positioning: The Curious Case of Craigslist
  Theresa Senft – School of Social Sciences, Media and Cultural Studies, University of East London

About the Workshop
It is clear that the boundaries between the ‘public’ and the ‘private’ are becoming increasingly blurred within and amongst sites of home and work. Indeed, in the wake of reality television shows, national identity card schemes, increased social media usage and the like, publicity appears to be the order of the day. In this workshop we discuss the issues raised for those living in environments where there is seemingly little room for privacy (privacy, of course, not necessarily always being a good thing). As was the case last year, we intend for the workshop to be multi-disciplinary in nature, broad in the approaches participants take and issues they cover. If your work is about any aspect of digital culture, this is the workshop for you! The following are thus only indicative of potential topics that could be raised:

• How do people domesticate social media in their attempts to maintain a balance in publicity and privacy? Do they? Why do they, or don’t they?
• What matters are raised by increased access to data about individuals and organizations?
• What does the blurring of boundaries between public and private mean for our knowledge and experiences of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and disability?
• How are ICT mediated spaces created and maintained at home, work and those spaces in between? For example, how are ‘geek gamers’ finding spaces to play now the only console in the house can be in the living room?
• How are ICT policies shaping public and private spaces throughout societies around the world?
• What privacy issues are presented by media convergence?
• What role are mobile and ubiquitous computing technologies playing in public and private spaces?
• How is the increased commodification of social media affecting our privacy?

Following from the first workshop we continue to see this workshop having three purposes. First, we seek to give voice and structure to existing new media, ICT and technology related research which may not readily sit within conventionally accepted areas. Second, we wish to draw in research on new forms of digital technology, ICT, computing, organizing and social interactions. Third, we want to continue discussions regarding potential futures for ICT related research which combine research as related to the evolving forms and functions of work organizations and the changing boundaries and relations between these organizations and their social milieus.

We hope to have a special issue of a journal associated with the workshop as was the case last year (a special issue of the Journal of Information, Communication, Ethics and Society was published early in 2009 – Vol 7, Issue 1).

Workshop Arrangements
Workshop places are limited and would be grateful if people would register for the workshop by 22 May if possible. If you wish to register after that date, please could you contact Nathalie Audren-Howarth at: n.audren@salford.ac.uk in order that we can make sure we have space for you.

The fee for presentation/attendance at the workshop is £75 GBP. This will cover refreshments and meals throughout the workshop and a workshop dinner to be held on the evening of the 4th of June.

There is no fee for PhD students, however they still need to register for the workshop. PhD student registration includes refreshments during the workshop but excludes attendance at the workshop dinner (This is subject to a 25 GBP fee, payable upon registration). If you are a PhD student who wishes to register without attending the workshop dinner, please email Nathalie Audren-Howarth. Free PhD student places are limited.

You can register for the workshop at: https://shop.salford.ac.uk

Location of the workshop
The workshop will be held in the Peel Building on the University of Salford’s Peel Park Campus. The campus is only a few minutes from Manchester City Centre and is served by good rail and bus services. Car parking is also available onsite. For further details see http://www.salford.ac.uk/travel

Accommodation
Delegates should arrange their own accommodation. Please see: http://www.iris.salford.ac.uk and follow the conferences link for further details.

Speakers

• Twittering away at the boundary of public and private. Helen Kennedy, University of Leeds, UK.
• “And who are you today?” identity shifts across online communities. Vicki Trowler, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
• The gaze of Magibon: identity, intimacy and reception on YouTube multi-million-viewed self-broadcasts. Sérgio Luiz Tavares Filho,University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
• Digital mapping: cartography of the common. Jean-Christophe Plantin, Université Paris 8, France.
• Enacting engagement online: cultural institutions and the rhetoric of democracy. Jenny Kidd, City University, UK.
• “As if nobody’s reading”: the role of the imagination in blogging practice. David Brake, London School of Economics, UK.
• Reflections on the revelations of taboo intimacies: a study of online forums for problem gamblers and those affected by problem gambling. Chris Bull, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
• Physical vs. virtual interaction on the front-line: changing cultures of practice. Emma Coleman and Frances Bell, University of Salford, UK.
• ICT in family life: proximity without communication. Maryam Atoofi and Ian Beeson, University of the West of England
• Skype, blackberries, web-mail versus bedtime, family-time, your-time: are new social media steering families to a dystopian or utopian lifestyle? Marie Griffiths, University of Salford, UK and Rachel McLean, University of Bolton, UK.
• Production and sharing of vernacular mobile videos. Gaby David – Ecole des Hautes Etude en Sciences Sociales, Paris.
• Golden girls and boys: researching the online privacy concerns of older people. Danijela Bogdanovic, Michael Dowd and Alison Adam, University of Salford, UK.
• “It’s the data that makes you special”: individuation, privacy, and social media in the molecular genetics laboratory. David Wilson, Mark Bailey, and Philip Gray, University of Glasgow, UK
• Public vs. private: conflict and compromise in converging social networks. Helen Keegan, University of Salford, UK.
• Work, rest and play in the digital playground. Nic Crowe, Brunel University, UK.
• Privacy in web-based community ehealth systems. Dr Brian Regan, O. Tolga Pusatli and Eugene Lutton, The University of Newcastle, Australia
• Grief, Fame and social networks – gone too soon? Gordon Fletcher, University of Salford, UK and Anita Greenhill, University of Manchester, UK.
• New technologies confounding the boundaries of cultures: the dilemma within the digital classroom. Andrew Barbour, The University of Huddersfield, UK.
• Political technologies of the virtual body. David Kreps, University of Salford, UK.
• Organisational discourses: tackling gender inequality in the media industries. Shelia French and Maritn Griffith, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
• Giving strategic direction to web 2.0 applications. Andrew Basden, University of Salford, UK and Nick Breems, Dordt College, USA.

I have a couple more papers in progress about Gaydar, but I’m looking to move into other areas now and I’ve really not engaged with Gayar as much as I was a few years ago as a result (there’s only so many spaces you can engage with in any meaningful way I think!). Anyway, that said, I logged in this weekend and was invited to partipate in a survey described to me as looking at the lives of the LGBT community – it’s named Outright and is to being done in conjunction with Channel 4, Hitwise and Global Park. This survey was done a few years ago and somehow I’d missed the invite that time round – moreover, it had been quoted back at me by Qsoft (the owners of Gaydar) as a response to a press release which had been taken up by pink news (story here). Thus, I thought I’d take up the survey to see exactly what kind of data they might have collected and thus what they were basing their counter arguments upon (of course, the previous survey may well have been structured differently, but I thought it was worth a look).

Despite the invite saying the survey was about the lives of the LGBT community, it really was just market research and did nothing that I could see to illicit from resondents any thoughts about the potential for stereotyping or marginalisation within the Gaydar.co.uk  Yet, In the response to my press release, QSoft cited the previous study:

There is no need for us to change the way in which we offer categorisations to our members. They are based upon extensive research into what our users say they want us to provide. If users felt marginalised by the system, rest assured they would be the first to tell us so. We are constantly researching the views and requirements of our community of users via focus groups and research programmes such as Outright 2006.”

Of course, the 2006 survey might have asked different questions to the current one…   Whatever, it is clear that the 2009 survey is very much about market research. It asked me questions about: alcohol consumption, grooming products and cosmetics, expenditure on clothing, clothing brand preferences, mobile phones/providers, internet usage/purchasing practices, music and film preferences/consumption habits, car/home ownership, grocery shopping/eating habits, gym membership/vitamin & supplements consumption, income and expenditure habits, media consumption and advertising preferences and how I viewed technology – and people viewed me as a technology user (see picture below).

Above and beyond, the clear evidence for interest in the so called Pink Pound, what the survey also made clear to me is a continuing theme of the ‘LGBT lot’ being seen as opinion leaders, a market that will draw in those around them – as evidenced by the questions configured as ‘do people seek your opinion’. This resonates with QSoft’s prior research:

[Why Target the Gay Market?] Because you want the Mainstream Market. The gay consumers friends and family are part of the wider community. Who better to target as an ambassador [f]or your product than the person in the group with the money to purchase and the inclination to innovate?[4] (Light, et. al. 2008)

What I find interesting is that the 2006 survey was based on only 18,000 responses. To set things in context, at the time there were around 2 million worldwide/670K UK members of Gaydar alone. Yet, from the 2006 survey it was clear that data was then being used to say ‘this is what the LGBT community is like’ – they were homogenized. Even if survey participants for 2006 were recruited from beyond Gaydar and more are recruited in 2009 it is going to be difficult to get away from that homogenization process – it’s impossible to get everyone to participate. Of course it’s a perennial problem with survey work.  However, there seems to be little moderation in the way the results of the 2006 survey was reported – glitzy marketing packs and presentations are prepared which transform the data into truth. In doing this, as we have said before, this keeps a market in their place (Light, et. al. 2008) and it configures those who identifty as LGB or T in particular ways. From the survey, I found the link to Outright…

On the Outright site, I found downloads of exerpts from the research (see here - if the link is removed I have copies).  I also found video clips of representatives of Madame Tussauds and the Hilton group  talking about their approach to the LGBT market – they’re worth downloading/taking a look at (see here - again, if the link is removed I have copies).  I was going to write about these, but this post is long enough and I think they speak for themselves – whether it’s the guy from the Hilton saying they were ‘feared’ the Gay Community (what will we do – criticise their décor!) or the PDF slides which state that coming out is probably going to be easier now because the UK has civil partnerships and essentially that we don’t mind being in debt – that’s it, of course, the LGBT lot are responsible for the credit crunch!

References

Light, B. Fletcher, G. and Adam, A. (2008) Gay Men, Gaydar and the Commodification of Difference, Information Technology and People, 21(3), 300-314. PDF

Fletcher, G. and Light, B. (2007) Going Offline: An Exploratory Cultural Artifact Analysis of an Internet Dating Site’s Development Trajectories, International Journal of Information Management, 27(6), 422-431.  PDF

Light, B. (2007) Introducing Masculinity Studies to Information Systems Research: the Case of Gaydar, European Journal of Information Systems, 16(5), 658-665.

My flight was being served by an obviously gay flight attendant, who seemed
to put everyone in a good mood as he served us food and drinks.

As the plane prepared to descend, he came swishing down the aisle and told us that
‘Captain Marvey has asked me to announce that he’ll be landing the big scary plane shortly, so lovely people, if you could just put your trays up, that would be super.’

On his trip back up the aisle, he noticed this well-dressed a woman hadn’t moved a muscle. ‘Perhaps you didn’t hear me over those big brute engines but I asked you to raise your trazy-poo, so the main man can pitty-pat us on the ground.’

She calmly turned her head and said,
‘In my country, I am called a Princess and I take orders from no one.’

To which (I swear) the flight attendant replied , without missing a beat,

‘Well, sweet-cheeks, in my country I’m called a Queen, so I outrank you.
Tray -up, Bitch’

2nd Digital Cultures Workshop: Social Media Publics
4-5 June 2009, University of Salford, U.K.

Final Call for Contributions

Organizers
Ben Light and Marie Griffiths, University of Salford
Sian Lincoln, Liverpool John Moores University
Steve Sawyer, Syracuse University

Confirmed Speakers
Dr. Carsten Sørensen – Information Systems and Innovation Group, Department of Management, London School of Economics
Dr. Theresa Senft – School of Social Sciences, Media and Cultural Studies, University of East London

It is clear that the boundaries between the ‘public’ and the ‘private’ are becoming increasingly blurred within and amongst sites of home and work. Indeed, in the wake of reality television shows, national identity card schemes, increased social media usage and the like, publicity appears to be the order of the day. For this workshop we seek papers that discuss the issues raised for those living in environments where there is seemingly little room for privacy. As was the case last year, we intend for the workshop to be multi-disciplinary in nature, broad in the approaches participants take and issues they cover. If your work is about any aspect of digital culture, this is the workshop for you! The following are thus only indicative of potential topics that could be raised:

- How do people domesticate social media in their attempts to maintain a balance in publicity and privacy? Do they? Why do they, or don’t they?
- What matters are raised by increased access to data about individuals and organizations?
- What does the blurring of boundaries between public and private mean for our knowledge and experiences of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and disability?
- How are ICT mediated spaces created and maintained at home, work and those spaces in between? For example, how are ‘geek gamers’ finding spaces to play now the only console in the house can be in the living room?
- How are ICT policies shaping public and private spaces throughout societies around the world?
- What privacy issues are presented by media convergence?
- What role are mobile and ubiquitous computing technologies playing in public and private spaces?
- How is the increased commodification of social media affecting our privacy?

Following from the first workshop we continue to see this workshop having three purposes. First, we seek to give voice and structure to existing new media, ICT and technology related research which may not readily sit within conventionally accepted areas. Second, we wish to draw in research on new forms of digital technology, ICT, computing, organizing and social interactions. Third, we want to continue discussions regarding potential futures for ICT related research which combine research as related to the evolving forms and functions of work organizations and the changing boundaries and relations between these organizations and their social milieus.
We seek abstracts (of up to 600 words) that focus upon some aspect of digital culture. We hope to have a special issue of a journal associated with the workshop as was the case last year (a special issue of the Journal of Information, Communication, Ethics and Society was published early in 2009 – Vol 7, Issue 1). Abstracts should be submitted to Ben Light at: b.light@salford.ac.uk

Important Dates
Abstract Submission Date: 28 February 2009
Notification of Acceptance: 31 March 2009
Workshop Dates: 4 and 5 June 2009

Workshop Arrangements
The fee for presentation/attendance at the workshop is £75 GBP. This will cover refreshments and meals throughout the workshop and a workshop dinner to be held on the evening of the 4th of June.
There is no fee for PhD students, however they still need to register for the workshop. PhD student registration includes refreshments during the workshop but excludes attendance at the workshop dinner (This is subject to a £25 GBP fee, payable upon registration).

You will be able to register for the workshop at: https://shop.salford.ac.uk
Further details regarding the location of the workshop will be posted nearer the time at: http://www.iris.salford.ac.uk

What’s Your Web 2.0 Ethics?

Many are engaging with Web 2.0 technology in their personal lives, and increasingly at work. Even if you don’t think there’s much new in Web 2.0 technologies, that it’s merely a renaming of extant things, you can’t ignore the power of them as presented now, and as widely adopted. It is perhaps the level of adoption of these technologies, combined with the potentialities for social interaction of different kinds, that make Web 2.0 so interesting from an ethical perspective. For years, it has been well recognized that there are inextricable interplays between our home and work lives — many people meet their life partners at work; we have rules governing the use of office equipment for personal use, such as phones and PCs; and, of course, who can forget the office Christmas party! These examples immediately bring to mind ethical issues surrounding them. I would argue that Web 2.0 — particularly Web 2.0-enabled social networking sites — complicate this even further. In this short communication, I want to look at a few examples, consider some of the ethical questions arising, and discuss what we can do about them — if anything.

Recruitment
The popular press is awash with stories of employers screening candidates by cyberstalking them. To some extent, there is nothing new in this — noncomputer-based social networks have long been used to source employees and weed out undesirable ones. Indeed, before the rise of Web 2.0, people were often Googled (and still are). So what’s the problem? Isn’t this merely an extension of technological usage in the recruitment process? We’re only looking at stuff that’s already public, right? Yet academics such as Judith Donath have pointed to the fact that users of online sites often see these as personal spaces — as safe and closed worlds where they can publish material. This is also the case in my research on sites such as Facebook. It is clear that for many, such sites are for personal use only — even though they are usually publicly accessible. We might ask, then: is it right to use any media possible to find out about candidates?

Usage at Work
Another theme that has arisen through my research on Web 2.0 relates to how managers and employees perceive access to technology at work. In the so-called developed world, and increasingly in developing countries, there has been a shift over the past five years in our relationship to technology usage for socialization purposes: we rely on it more, and it is shaping our interactions in unanticipated ways. This is coinciding with greater Internet use within business and, unsurprisingly, the two are becoming intertwined. I’ve heard stories of employers banning access to social networking sites and others allowing this within certain parameters (as historically might have been the case with telephone use for personal purposes). Thus, we might ask how much control should managers (who are usually also employees) exert over other employees’ activity related to their personal lives at work? Do employees have to manage their personal lives so that they do not affect their work lives?

‘Technology Made Me Do It!’
So far, I have emphasized the ethical issues raised by people’s use of Web 2.0. My work on Facebook’s ethics (with Marie Griffiths and Kathy McGrath) focuses on the role of technology. From this study, it is clear that privacy settings confound users who wish to maintain a degree of privacy. For example, Facebook automatically submits your profile to search engines upon account creation, and privacy settings present themselves to the user in ways that are notoriously difficult to navigate and enact. Moreover, the applications that operate via classification and recommendation algorithms add further complications. Consider the scenario where Facebook recommends you friend your boss or the situation where your boss does not appear in your “Top Friends,” for example. In such arrangements, where does morality lie?

So What Do We Do?
The interrogation of a candidate’s personal life raises considerable ethical questions given the expansion of the possibilities for data collection Web 2.0 brings. Such activity is further made problematic by the lack of clarity around a person’s consent for, and knowledge of, the use of data presented in a particular context being reappropriated in another. Similarly, for these reasons, many parents and siblings agree not to friend each other — the “some things are better left unknown” principle. It seems people are learning — and need to learn — about identity management. Some people are taking dramatic action in this respect, taking the stance of “maximum publicity” and shunning privacy, the idea being if anyone can see anything about me, no one can “get me.” Moreover, if a potential employer doesn’t like what it sees, then I wouldn’t want to work for that company. This latter reflection applies equally to the use of technology at work. Indeed, in response to the narratives about the control of technology use at work, business students have told me that they expect to be able to engage with Web 2.0 and, in doing so, they gain valuable transferable skills and contacts they can engage for work purposes. I recently moved to a school of media, music, and performance where such questions aren’t even on the table. The philosophy here is that if it makes us creative and successful, let’s use it. Perhaps there’s a lesson here from the creative industries.

Finally, with respect to the role of technology, I adopt the position that technology never plays out in exactly the way the designer intended. Thus, it becomes very tricky to say it’s the “fault” of the user, the developer, or the technology. Instead, one might construct responsibilities for guiding the ethical use of Web 2.0 experientially over time. It is clear to me that we can properly understand these issues only as we learn to live with such technologies, the flashpoints created around them, and their positive influences.