Research Journal Page 6

In Chapter 7 of Representing Youth (2007), Alyssa Richman explores the practice of “lurking” as a way of gathering research on youth.  The idea of going online and visiting sites to watch the online conversations without actually interacting with the members on that site raises some ethical issues.  One part of her article raised some questions for me, “However, the position of the lurker implies a particular element of power that comes from the observation of others without their knowledge, but unlike structural and institutional power imbalances that shape the relationships between adults and youth, anyone can choose to lurk in an online space” (p. 196).

Richman further explores the issue of informed consent and that it is violated in the case of lurking since people who are involved in contributing to the online message boards are unaware that what they write is being used in research (p. 196).  Richman further states, “However, this violation was mitigated by several factors: first, the public nature of the research spaces and, second, the publication aspects of bulletin-board postings” (p. 196).  This brings to mind my question:  When teens engage online in order to post on blogs, message boards or chat rooms, are they forfeiting their rights to informed consent because they are present in these public spaces?   And, if yes, are they aware that they are?

Richman’s references refer to a document authored by Charles Ess and the Association of Internet Researchers (2002) called “Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee.”  I decide to read and explore about this topic more since it struck me in Richman’s article.  I didn’t see any acknowledgement on the part of Richman that there were certain statements made on the sites that she visited that would make it ok for her to lurk, as specified by the Association of Internet Researchers.  In Part II of this document, which is titled “Questions to ask when undertaking Internet research,” one of the questions that would pertain to Richman’s research is listed:  “Is there a posted site policy that establishes specific expectations - e.g., a statement notifying users that the site is public, the possible technical limits to privacy in specific areas or domains, etc.” (p. 5).

Another statement made in this document is, “One broad consideration:  the greater the acknowledged publicity of the venue, the less obligation there may be to protect individual privacy, confidentiality, right to informed consent, etc.” (p. 5).

So to answer my own question, according to this document teens are forfeiting their rights to informed consent.  I guess my point is that I would have like to see Richman include and discuss whether or not these disclosures were present on the sites where she was a lurker.  I would like to know more about this part of her research since it directly impacts the teens she was using as research.  Were they aware that the information they post is fair game for researchers?  Do they truly know and understand that there is no obligation to protect their privacy?  As adults, we are quite aware of the possible lack of privacy while using the internet, but I am not so sure that teens are clear on this.

Best, Amy L.  (2007).  Representing Youth:  Methodological Issues in Critical Youth Studies, (Ed.).  New York, NY:  New York University Press.

Ess, Charles, and the Association of Internet Researchers.  (2007).  Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research:  Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee.  Retrieved February 25, 2004, from www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.

Research Journal Page 5

I wanted to think further about the article by Linda Teran Strommen and Barbara Fowles Mates (2004), “Learning to love reading:  Interviews with older children and teens.”  There was only so much that I could explore within the abstract, and the study was really interesting and insightful.

In this study, kids were put into two groups:  the Readers and the Not-readers.  The kids who participated in the study had some very different backgrounds in terms of reading.  The Readers’ characteristics were as follows:

·         They remember loving certain books that their parents read to them over and over

·         They mention frequent visits to bookstores and libraries

·         Conversations and discussions about reading frequently taking place with other readers

·         Friends, parents and/or other family members are also avid readers who share books

·         They had a bedtime ritual of reading that never ended

·         They read every day

Another important statement that was made about the Readers is, “The Readers we interviewed said they love to read because reading stimulates their imagination; takes them to new places; and introduces them to new ideas, events, and elements of human emotion” (p. 196).

The Not-readers characterized reading as boring, and said that they didn’t really understand what the authors were trying to say.  Reading was also looked at as a purpose and not a pleasure (p. 198).

The research notes that there seems to be a change in the reader once they were between the ages of 9 and 11.  They remember reading frequently before that age, but then recalled a time period where they simply stopped and lost interest in reading.  This is a time period where most kids really develop strong independent reading skills.  Once these children acquired the skills necessary to read independently, they seemed to have lost interest in reading.  Is this because their parents no longer felt it necessary to read to their child or encourage continued reading?  Did they think that once they acquired the skill, the learning ended? They felt now that their children could read that they no longer needed to work on that skill by continuing to read? 

It is interesting that even one of the Not-readers had parents who were readers, and although they modeled reading by engaging in it, they didn’t verbally encourage their daughter to read.  The girl, a ninth grader, stated “It’s just not something I have motivation to do.  My parents never really thought it was that important, basically” (p. 195).  It seems that modeling is not the only significant action, but in order to create readers, kids must be encouraged to read by siblings or parents that can also discuss books with them as well.  There needs to be interaction with books, and although the actual reading itself is usually solitary, kids need an outlet to discuss or tell someone about what they are reading. I also found it interesting that many of the Not-readers mentioned parents who encouraged them to read in order to become smarter or do better in school.  It is significant that some individuals seem to see reading as a means to an end instead of as a leisurely activity, a way to use our imaginations, an activity that makes us think, or simply a process of learning.  

This study clearly displays that reading has to be a social activity for kids, and that is why the Not-readers stopped reading.  They had no encouragement to read, no discussion or book recommendations from others (outside of teachers), and because of this they lost interest.  There is no sharing or interaction going on so they don’t see reading as an exciting and pleasurable activity.  And let’s face it, when we read something that we have really enjoyed, don’t we recommend it to others?  Don’t we ask other readers what they thought of it?  Discussing our thoughts and feelings on something we have read makes it real for us and in some ways, don’t we crave that validation in our reading?  It’s clear that the social aspect of reading and being readers has a significant impact on the activity of reading itself.  Although this study only represents a small group of students, it is obvious that the students who enjoy reading and can’t imagine not spending time doing it are living in environments where they are encouraged and supported to read by other readers.  Modeling is everything, but the Not-readers have demonstrated that even that is simply not enough to get them to read.

Strommen, Linda Teran.  (2004).  Learning to Love Reading:  Interviews with Older Children and Teens.  Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(3), 188-200.  Retrieved from EBSCO.

Research Journal Page 4

I am thinking about research having to do with the “non-traditional” reading that teens do and how they do so much reading that involves technology-we discussed parts of this in our posts-How reading is defined-who defines it and how that impacts upon teens and their motivations to read/not read.

As I put this idea out to my group, they helped with responses to direct me toward a narrower inquiry. One of my group members commented “I like the idea of combining how reading is defined with how society views the reading rate in teens.  Like, are we saying teens aren’t reading simply because we only consider reading to be books?”

After careful consideration, and taking the comments from the group as well as Prof. Harlan, I am researching and answering the following question:  How does the current definition of reading (as print on paper) impact the reading motivation of teens?

Part of this involves accepting the presence and need for literacy in areas other than just print books.  Students are reading blogs, websites, message boards, e-books and many other things while surfing the internet, not to mention magazines, texts, graphic novels, manga, etc.

Another part is understanding that teens need to be socially connected in all that they do, so how does this impact their reading?  And what about those who claim that they don’t read?

These are all challenges for teachers and the way that reading is currently recognized within the classroom.