#theoryofficgate

“Round-up: TheoryOfFicgate,” by learnfromthewintertrees

Curator’s note: the academia/fandom blow-up now known as #theoryofficgate has received attention from a number of sectors – fandom and fan studies, in particular. It was the impetus for discussions about research and teaching ethics amongst some fan studies scholars, and it even came up at at least one recent academic conference in that context. Here, learnfromthewintertrees offers a concise, and…

in which i talk about the theory-of-fic gate drama from last month and how i view academia’s place in analyzing things like fandom.

i say this in the video but i want to make sure it gets across - the first priority for any academic analysis of fandom (or academic analysis of anything) should be the safety, comfort, and informed consent of those being analyzed. i don’t discuss ethics much in this video, but the theoryoffic class unquestionably violated them, and everything i discuss in here assumes ethics are being followed.

The internet complicates the fundamental research ethics question of personhood. Is an avatar a person? Is one’s digital information an extension of the self? In the U.S. regulatory system, the primary question has generally been: Are we working with human subjects or not? If information is collected directly from individuals, such as an email exchange, instant message, or an interview in a virtual world, we are likely to naturally define the research scenario as one that involves a person. If the connection between the object of research and the person who produced it is indistinct, there may be a tendency to define the research scenario as one that does not involve any persons. This may oversimplify the situation--the question of whether one is dealing with a human subject is different from the question about whether information is linked to individuals: Can we assume a person is wholly removed from large data pools? For example, a data set containing thousands of tweets or an aggregation of surfing behaviors collected from a bot is perhaps far removed from the persons who engaged in these activities. In these scenarios, it is possible to forget that there was ever a person somewhere in the process that could be directly or indirectly impacted by the research.

This is a thing now, then?

In the specific case of having a class of people single a fanfic author's work out and swoop down upon it, I totally understand them having a negative reaction and feeling besieged. They should have the right to ask said class not to.

However, in general constructive criticism is to be welcomed.  Its what helps a writer improve, shows them what to work on and how to do better than before. Can it be uncomfortable, getting your flaws brought to light? Of course, but its how you get better and its worth countlessly more than just another "great chapter update soon plz".

Like, is my experience of fandom different to other people's? Because this is the one I've been taught: