[liberationtech] ISJ Special Issue on Reframing Privacy in a Networked World

[Yosem Companys]

Information Systems Journal (ISJ) Special Issue on Reframing Privacy in a
Networked World

 Special Issue Coordinating Editor-in-Chief
Eileen M. Trauth (The Pennsylvania State University) -etrauth at ist.psu.edu

 Special Issue Guest Editors
Heng Xu (The Pennsylvania State University) -hxu at ist.psu.edu
France Bélanger (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) -
belanger at vt.edu

 Call: Empirical and conceptual research addressing the need for a paradigm
shift in understanding privacy in today’s networked world

 Submission Deadline: January 15, 2014

 Motivation: As huge amounts of diverse information about individuals
become available in online electronic form, privacy is an ever-present and
mounting concern among multiple stakeholders including business leaders,
privacy activists, scholars, government regulators, and consumers.  For
example, social media brought the voluntary disclosure of personal data to
the mainstream, thus making privacy concerns particularly salient in recent
years. The extensive display of personal information by users of social
media requires greater stress on theoretical, epistemological, and
empirical research in information privacy. Businesses’ increasing use of
big data also will likely give rise to new privacy concerns. Therefore,
research on information privacy is needed to address how factors related to
technological change and societal trends are combining to reshape privacy
expectations and their implications.

 Information Systems Journal (ISJ) is issuing this call for a special issue
on privacy to facilitate the development of rigorous IS research and theory
development in the field. The goal of this special issue is to encourage
high quality research papers that have implications for addressing the need
for a paradigm shift in understanding and addressing privacy in today’s
digital economy. The possible topics of interest include, but are not
limited to, the following five themes:

 1. Reconciling privacy goals. Two recent privacy literature reviews
suggest that the majority of privacy goals to date have focused on
withholding information disclosure, increasing information control, and
restricting information access (Bélanger and Crossler 2011; Smith et al.
2011). In the context of social media, these traditional privacy goals are
opposed to the goal of connecting via social networks in order to develop
and maintain social relationships. According to Lipford et al. (2012),
privacy should be characterized as a broader process whereby individuals
and groups coordinate social interaction with others. In this broader
conceptualization, privacy goals in social media should differ from
traditional online privacy goals because of its change of agency (from the
self to a group), its inclusion of interactional and interpersonal privacy
decision making, and its collective domain where the user and her social
ties share responsibilities for keeping their shared data safe and private.
We invite researchers to understand privacy goals beyond binary decisions
to withhold or disclose information and to explore conceptual underpinnings
of privacy in the context of social media.

 2. Contextual nature of privacy. There has been a recent call for research
to investigate the contextual nature of privacy (Nissenbaum 2010; John et
al. 2011). People’s expectations and problems concerning privacy may all
differ when moving among areas of computation and tasks (Xu et al. 2012a;
Conger et al. 2013). What may be a privacy concern in healthcare websites
may be a very different problem for users than in social networking
websites. As Smith et al. (2011) pointed out, the context-sensitive nature
of privacy makes it clear that questions about privacy necessarily imply
specifying privacy “for whom” and “from whom,” “about what,” “for what
reasons,” “under what conditions,” and “for what kinds of social roles and
relationships.” According to Nissenbaum (2010), context-specific concerns
for information privacy ties the notion of privacy to “norms of specific
contexts, demanding that information  gathering  and  dissemination  be
 appropriate  to  that context  and  obey  the  governing  norms  of
 distribution  within  it (p.101)”. We invite researchers to explore the
contextual nature of privacy and to understand what constitutes information
privacy or privacy violations under different contexts.

 3. Moving beyond the individual level of analysis. The majority of privacy
studies to date have adopted the individual as the unit of analysis
(Bélanger and Crossler 2011; Smith et al. 2011). It is not surprising that
most studies are designed at this level because it is relatively easier to
collect data through surveys to examine individuals’ perceptions of various
privacy-related practices (Smith et al. 2011). However, “much of this focus
on individual-level privacy perceptions and relationships has been at the
expense of our understanding at other levels of analysis” (Smith et al.
2011, p. 1006). We, therefore, invite researchers to examine privacy issues
and impacts at other levels, adopting the dyad, group, organization,
sector, or societal as the unit of analysis.

 4. Studying actual outcomes. Previous research has advocated the
importance of establishing preventative approaches to reduce privacy
threats and protect personal information, through policies,
privacy-enhancing technologies, and administrative processes. However, the
effectiveness of these approaches remains unclear, especially with the
latest research disclosing users’ misbehaviors, such as lack of adherence
and compliance. The literature is less vocal in capturing the actual
outcomes of privacy-related constructs (Belanger and Crossler 2011).
Outcomes should be interpreted as “actual changes of state or behavior;
this is distinct from an examination of attitudes, beliefs, and intentions
(Smith et al. 2011, p.1007).” For example, outcomes at the individual level
could include actual changes of privacy settings to restrict information
access, or actual amount of information disclosure (Hui et al. 2007).
Organizational outcomes could include documented violations of privacy,
successful prosecutions of privacy violations, and business impacts of
implementing privacy safeguards (Culnan and Williams 2009).

 5. Designing privacy artifacts. A significant amount of existing privacy
research in information systems has focused on studies providing
explanations and predictions of the phenomenon, with very few studies
attempting to provide design and action contributions (Belanger and
Crossler 2011). Yet, there is a need for both the design of IT artifacts
for privacy protection and for an evaluation of such artifacts. As
suggested by the design science perspective, an evaluation of design
guidelines could also provide substantial benefit to the field. With a few
recent exceptions (e.g., Xu et al., 2012b; Bélanger et al., 2013), few
information systems researchers have considered the interaction between IT
privacy artifacts and individual behaviors. This is likely a fruitful area
of research in need of further exploration. We, therefore, invite
researchers to answer the call for “more design and action information
privacy research to be published in journal articles that can result in IT
artifacts for protection or control of information privacy” (Bélanger and
Crossler 2011, p. 1017).

 Deadlines and Submission Instructions

 Submissions to the special issue are due no later than Jan 15, 2014. All
submissions must adhere to the formatting guidelines for Information
Systems Journal. Submissions for the full papers must be made to the ISJ’s
Manuscript Central Account: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/isj, where you
should select the Special Issue as the submission type.

 The review process will proceed as follows:

 • All manuscripts will be prescreened by the Guest Editors and only papers
that have a reasonable chance of acceptance after a maximum of two rounds
of review will enter the review process. Manuscripts that do not pass this
hurdle will not be further considered for the special issue but authors may
consider revising papers for submission to ISJ through the normal
submission process.

 • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be subject to a formal
review process. A maximum of two review cycles will occur.

 • Authors must adhere to a strict schedule for submission and revisions.
The first round of reviews will be provided within 3 months of submission
(April 15, 2014). Revised manuscripts must be returned within 3 months of
receipt of the reviews (July 15, 2014). The second round of reviews will be
completed by Aug 31, 2014. Final acceptance will be announced by Sept 30,
2014.

 Important dates for the Special Issue on Reframing Privacy are:

 • Initial submission due: Jan 15, 2014
• First round decisions: April 15, 2014
• Revised manuscripts due: July 15, 2014
• Final decisions: Aug 31, 2014

 Early submissions are welcome and will be put into the review process as
soon as possible.

 Editorial Review Board

 Alessandro Acquisti, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Corey Angst, University of Notre Dame, USA
Louise Barkhuus, Stockholm University, Sweden
Christian Bonnici, Royal Holloway University of London, UK
Burcu Bulgurcu, Boston College, USA
Hasan Cavusoglu, University of British Columbia, Canada
Sue Conger, University of Dallas, USA
Robert E. Crossler, Mississippi State University, USA
Mary J. Culnan, American University, USA
Tamara Dinev, Florida Atlantic University, USA
Beverly Hope, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Kai-Lung Hui, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
Mark Keith, Bringham Young University, USA
Sung Kim, University of Wisconsin - Madison, USA
Bart Knijnenburg, University of California - Irvine, USA
Hanna Krasnova, Humboldt-University, Germany
Airi Lampinen, Helsinki Institute for Information Technology, Finland
Han Li, Minnesota State University Moorhead, USA
Xin "Robert" Luo, University of New Mexico, USA
George Milne, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA
Caroline Miltgen, University of Angers, France
Sameer Patil, Helsinki Institute for Information Technology, Finland
Chee Wei Phang, Fudan University, China
Clay Posey, University of Alabama, USA
H. Raghav Rao, University at Buffalo, USA
H. Jeff Smith, Miami University, USA
Fred Stutzman, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, USA
Juliana Sutanto, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Chuan-Hoo Tan, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Weiquan Wang, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Pamela Wisniewski, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

 References

 Bélanger, F., and Crossler, R.E. (2011) Privacy in the Digital Age: A
Review of Information Privacy Research in Information Systems. MIS
Quarterly, 35(4), 1017-1041.
Bélanger, F., Crossler, R. E., Hiller, J. S., Hsiao, M., and Park, J-P.
(2013) POCKET: A Tool for Protecting Children’s Privacy Online. Decision
Support Systems, 54(2), 1161-1173.
Conger, S., Pratt, J.H., and Loch, K.D. (2013) Personal Information Privacy
and Emerging Technologies. Information Systems Journal, forthcoming.
Culnan, M.J., and Williams, C.C. (2009) How Ethics Can Enhance
Organizational Privacy: Lessons from the ChoicePoint and TJX Data Breaches.
MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 673-687.
Hui, K. L., Teo, H. H., and Lee, S.-Y.T. (2007) The Value of Privacy
Assurance: An Exploratory Field Experiment. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 19-33.
John, L., Acquisti, A. and Loewenstein, G. (2011) Strangers on a Plane:
Context-dependent Willingness to Divulge Personal Information. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(5), 858-873.
Lipford, R.H., Wisniewski, J.P., Lampe, C., Kisselburgh, L., and Caine, K.
(2012) Workshop on Reconciling Privacy with Social Media. The ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, Washington,
USA. http://phitlab.host22.com/cscw2012/
Nissenbaum, H. (2010) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the
Integrity of Social Life, Stanford Law Books.
Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., and Xu, H. (2011) Information Privacy Research: An
Interdisciplinary Review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989-1015.
Xu, H., Teo, H.H., Tan, B.C.Y., and Agarwal, R. (2012a) Effects of
Individual Self-Protection, Industry Self-Regulation, and Government
Regulation on Privacy Concerns: A Study of Location-Based Services.
Information Systems Research 23(4), 1342-1363.
Xu, H., Crossler, R. E., Bélanger, F. (2012b) A Value Sensitive Design
Investigation of Privacy-Enhancing Tools in Web Browsers. Decision Support
Systems, 54(1), 424-433.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130513/2ae24323/attachment.html>