Search results

Part 6: Cultural Differences and Communication Technology ; International audience ; China's Internet censorship practices are sophisticated and pervasive. Academic research and media reports have examined the Chinese government's varied, expansive methods of censorship and Chinese citizens' techniques of subverting them, but little attention has been paid to understanding how Chinese citizens think about censorship in their everyday lives. We conducted a qualitative study of Chinese mainland citizens who circumvented censorship. We found seemingly contradictory attitudes and practices among our participants. They showed proficiency at bypassing censorship, but were sometimes comfortable with censored information. They were willing to share sensitive information with others, but saw the benefits of limiting the public's access to information under certain circumstances. We examine how the complex, nuanced attitudes toward censorship resonate with the classic teachings of Confucianism, China's traditional philosophical and ethical system.

Social Media platforms are increasingly being used for political activities and communication, and research suggests that social media design and use is contributing to the polarization of the public sphere. This study draws on Habermas' ideals concerning deliberative democracy to explore if novel interface designs that diversify information sources through content recommendation, can decrease polarization. Through a design-probe interview approach and insights generated from 19 political and citizen experts in Finland and the United States, we found that our deliberative design can lead to depolarization, while creating additional complexity through which users question content and information. We discuss the need to move beyond naive content recommendation, and user interface level changes, in order to work towards a depolarized public sphere. ; Peer reviewed

There are several frameworks and approaches, addressing how to conduct ethnographic and qualitative field work in various settings. However, going by the book might not be an option when conducting research in politically charged, unstable or simply non-western regions. Politics, social pressure and even someone's personal safety might be necessary to consider. Another important area to consider are research ethics. Privacy policies might do their work with regard to existing laws which differ from each country and should ensure no harm for all involved parties, but how can this be guaranteed and does it also cover all aspects of ethics? Including stakeholders as a basis for user-centered work and design is common. But what does participation mean in such contexts? The questions are: What is important to consider when conducting ethnographic field work in such settings? How can we foster different degrees of genuine participation? How can we ensure, that the work we do is ethically correct without endangering the research outcome? In this workshop, we invite researchers and practitioners to rethink existing methods and approaches and start working on guidelines, that better serves the needs of such specific and to some extent critical circumstances.