1. Playing a Good Game: Ethical and Methodological Issues in Researching MMOGs Heidi McKee, PhD, Department of English Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA James E. Porter, PhD, Department of Writing, Rhetoric, & American Cultures WIDE Research Center [Writing in Digital Environments] Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

2. Who We Are / What We Are Doing Researchers in the field of rhetoric/composition using rhetoric as a critical tool in conjunction with casuistic ethics to develop procedures and analytic frameworks (heuristics) for helping Internet researchers address ethical issues

3. Who We Are / What We Are Doing We are not gamers We are not researching gamers or game worlds We are studying Internet researchers, most of whom are studying online communities (including game worlds)

4. Presentation Overview 1. Introduction: Overall research project —> theoretical frames, aims, methodology, and participants 2. Findings: Interviews with MMOG researchers —> findings, perspectives, themes, and issues 3. Analysis: Applying/developing heuristics to assist ethical analysis and problem solving 4. Conclusions

5. 1. Introduction: Overall research project —> theoretical frames, aims, methodology, and participants

6. Frame 1 — Rhetoric an art of invention involving procedures for discovery of ideas, content, arguments — aka “ heuristics ” not merely an art of presentation or “ packaging ” (organization, verbal display)

7. Rhetoric focuses on communication media — > writing, speech, visual display interaction with audience/s — > the impact of text/speech on audiences specific contexts — > locations, cultures, audiences, moments) ongoing process — > not just single communication moments

8. Heuristics From rhetoric, not computer science From Greek “ heureka ” ( “ I have found it ” ) A set of open-ended questions, prompts, categories, memory devices, or visual grids to aid invention, thinking, discovery, and deliberation; a system prompting invention or discovery of ideas

9. Visual Heuristics Visuals — particularly diagrams — are not merely tools for representation of verbal or quantitative data. Visual diagrams are tools for invention: they work as “ heuristics. ”

10. Frame 2 — Casuistry practical art of making ethical decisions based on - general norms and moral codes (paradigms, presumptions); - taxonomies of case types (analogy, comparison/contrast, precedent); and - acknowledgement of human diversity and the complexity of distinct circumstances related to legal reasoning

11. Casuistry — Misconceptions moral laxity “ scholastic sophistry in the service of moral mediocrity ” (Miller, 1996, p. 4) ad hoc particularism — > every situation is unique ( “ situation ethics ” )

12. The Process of Casuistry 1. Paradigm Cases — > establish consensus norms and benchmarks 2. Problematic Cases — > identify points of ambiguity, disagreement 3. Deliberation — > collaborative process of ethical decision making - adapted from Jonsen & Toulmin, 1988

13. Our Research Project — Aims To describe and understand the ethical issues specific to doing Internet-based rhetoric, composition, and communication research; and To provide case-based analytic frameworks to assist researchers negotiating ethical issues

14. Methodology Collecting published cases Interviewing Internet researchers to collect stories “behind the scenes” and to understand ethical perspectives Using rhetorical and casuistical analysis to clarify issues, to taxonomize cases, and to suggest heuristic procedures for ethical decision making

15. Participants Profile N=25 —> Internet researchers interviewed N=5 —> Researchers working primarily in MMOGs or virtual worlds (e.g., SL) Disciplines: Rhetoric/composition (6), technical communication (5), communication studies, gender and culture, culture and media, education, anthropology, information technology Rank/Position: 7 graduate student, 17 faculty, 1 IT professional Gender: 17 female, 8 male Researcher Location: 14 working in US universities, 10 working in universities outside US, 1 working in industry outside US [Heidi: I’m not sure about the counts here.]

16. 2. Findings: Interviews with MMOG researchers —> findings, perspectives, themes, and issues

17. Participants Profile — MMOG Researchers N=5 —> Researchers working primarily in MMOGs or virtual worlds (e.g., SL) Disciplines: Communication, education, culture and media, anthropology, rhetoric/composition (???) Rank/Position: 3 faculty, 2 graduate student (???) Gender: 4 female, 1 male Researcher Location: 4 working in US universities, 1 working in university outside US

18. 3. Analysis: Applying/developing heuristics to assist ethical analysis and problem solving

19. Heuristics — common topics (topoi) comparison/contrast whole/part genus/species cause/effect essential/accidental

20. Topos — Whole/Part Is informed consent from individuals sufficient? Or must consent be obtained from the community at large? - the citizens/members? - the moderators? - the sponsoring agency? (e.g., Linden Labs?

21. Researcher Values/Beliefs (Givens) Researching avatar subject to same ethic as researching person (e.g., consent). Virtual does not mean “ not real. ” Game world is not a place for publication. It is not (purely) a fantasy world. Game world matters; it is important.

22. Researchers — Time in World Matters

23. What is a “ sensitive topic ” ? Information-based definition: Personal information or individual views that - would expose a person to ridicule, embarrassment, or negative public exposure - that pertain to illegal activity, personal health, sexual activity, religious beliefs, sexual preferences, family background, traumatic or emotionally distressing life experiences (death, injury, abuse), bodily functions, idiosyncratic behaviors Participant-based definition: Personal information or individual views that the person regards as sensitive and wants to keep confidential

24. Views of Internet :: Views of Research spaceplace/s medium culture/ community public, publication, “published” person/s text researcher rights community norms

25. Variability of Roles Player Role RL Person Role Researcher Role X X X X “murkiness” OW personal conversation (not usable) IW “telling other character to fuck off” IW conducting an interview

26. Building research credibility t = time in world Player credibility/skill Researcher credibility

27. Degrees of Interaction (Researcher Participant) Case study: in-depth shadowing of key informant, frequent sustained interaction (e.g., interviews, extensive observations) Interview (formal, whether IW or OW) Occasional, coincidental contact, collecting ad hoc chatter ("game talk") In-world “background noise,” “props” (i.e., characters as incidental; third party representation) Out-of-world writing (e.g., gamers who post in blogs and other online forums) High Low

28. Degrees of Interaction and Consent Case study: in-depth shadowing of key informant, frequent sustained interaction (e.g., interviews, extensive observations) Interview (formal, whether IW or OW) Occasional, coincidental contact, collecting ad hoc chatter ("game talk") In-world “background noise,” “props” (i.e., characters as incidental; third party representation) Out-of-world writing (e.g., gamers who post in blogs and other online forums) Consent No Consent

29. Degrees of Interaction, Consent, and Topic Sensitivity Case study: in-depth shadowing of key informant, frequent sustained interaction (e.g., interviews, extensive observations) Interview (formal, whether IW or OW) Occasional, coincidental contact, collecting ad hoc chatter ("game talk") In-world “background noise,” “props” (i.e., characters as incidental; third party representation) Out-of-world writing (e.g., gamers who post in blogs and other online forums) Consent No ConsentNot Sensitive Sensitive

30. Examples Case studies and interviews — whether sensitive or insensitive Quoting from blog re techniques for playing game Quoting from blog to critique person’s racist or sexist attitudes Screen shot of incidental, background toons taken during interview on sensitive topic Consent required Consent not required Consent not required

31. NOT Heuristic

32. Heuristic — Categories/Questions “ Consent: Is there reason to believe that obtaining consent will be difficult? Will the process of requesting consent itself cause harm? Is it possible to obtain consent in some other way (e.g., create a special chatroom explicitly for the study)? Harm: What are the potential harms in conducting the study? …” - Hudson & Bruckman, 2004, p. 138

33. Heuristic — AoIR Ethics Guidelines Questions to ask when undertaking Internet research: A.Venue/environment — expectations, authors/subjects, informed consent - Where does the interaction, communication, etc. under study take place? - What ethical expectations are established by the venue? - Who are the subjects posters / authors/ creators of the material and/or interactions under study? - Informed consent — specific considerations - Ess & AoIR, 2002

34. Heuristic — AoIR Ethics Guidelines Informed consent: Specific considerations -Timing -Medium -Addressees -How material is to be used? - Ess & AoIR, 2002

35. Issues of Representation When to use pseudonyms? -private conversation -sensitive topic When to use avatar name / credit speaker? -clearly public event, public speaking -nonsensitive topic When to use screen shot / avatar image? When to use direct quotation?

36. Heuristic — Grids - Sveningsson, 2004, p. 56

37. - McKee & Porter, in press

38. Harm / Benefit Grid Low Risk Low Benefit High Benefit High Risk XX Real names, quotations Pseudonyms, no quotations Aggregated data only X

39. Possible Harm in Research

40. Focus of public debate — outcome

41. Focus in our interviews — process

42. 4. Conclusion

43. Conclusions re Ethical Decisions Ethical issues are complex, but not unprecedented, unsolvable, or indeterminate. Use precedent, analogy, and taxonomy to guide decisions (e.g., reference to case types). Approach ethics as ongoing dialogic process — not as a single isolated decision at the design/approval stage - dialogic with participants, with colleagues, with IRBs. etc. - ongoing set of decisions through design, data collection, and publication/presentation of results Be flexible and adaptable over time — within same study, from study to study

44. Conclusions re IW Research Earn credibility through time in world Respect norms of game community (ies) Respect privacy of individuals (persons and toons), particularly with (a) high level of interaction, or (b) sensitive topic Identify yourself as researcher (or when in researcher role)