Playing a Good Game: Ethical and Methodological Issues in Researching MMOGs

Heidi McKee, PhD, Department of EnglishMiami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA

James E. Porter, PhD, Department of Writing, Rhetoric, & American CulturesWIDE Research Center [Writing in Digital Environments]Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

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

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)

Presentation Overview

1. Introduction: Overall research project —> theoretical frames, aims, methodology, and participants2. Findings: Interviews with MMOG researchers —> findings, perspectives, themes, and issues3. Analysis: Applying/developing heuristics to assist ethical analysis and problem solving4. Conclusions

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

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)

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

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

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.”

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

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”)

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

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

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

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.]

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

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

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

Heuristics — common topics (topoi)

• comparison/contrast• whole/part• genus/species• cause/effect• essential/accidental

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?

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.

Researchers — Time in World Matters

•

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

Views of Internet :: Views of Research

space place/s

medium culture/community

public, publication,“published”

person/stext

researcherrights

communitynorms

Variability of Roles

Player Role

RL Person Role

Researcher Role

X

X

X

X

“murkiness”

OW personalconversation (not usable)

IW “telling othercharacter to fuck off”

IW conductingan interview

Building research credibility

t = time in world

Pla

yer

cre

dib

ilit

y/s

kill

Researcher credibility

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

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

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 Consent Not Sensitive

Sensitive

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 required

Consent not required

Consent not required

NOT Heuristic

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

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

Heuristic — AoIR Ethics Guidelines

Informed consent: Specific considerations

- Timing- Medium- Addressees- How material is to be used?

- Ess & AoIR, 2002

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?

Heuristic — Grids

- Sveningsson, 2004, p. 56

- McKee & Porter, in press

Harm / Benefit Grid

Low Risk

Low Benefit

High Benefit

High Risk

X X

Real names,quotations

Pseudonyms, no quotations

Aggregateddata only

X

Possible Harm in Research

Focus of public debate — outcome

Focus in our interviews — process

4. Conclusion

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

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)