Considering all the people in this group with degress in communication, there shouldn't be any problems in discussing any issue whatsoever, should there?
BTW, I want to do my dissertation on analysis of discourse in mailing lists and BBS'. Specifically, the pragmatics of interaction: what was the poster's intention; and evidence, through replies, that the intention has had 'uptake', made the intended impact, gets the response required etc. Attached to this is the persona that each person adopts in such lists, and the roles they take in 'interactions'.

A few years ago almost everybody on the net was attached to a university. That's changing rapidly
I remember noticing several years ago that one of the biggest differences between usenet culture and list culture was that usenet had far more people outside academia than did lists -- or at least Listserv lists. My guess is that even now the majority of subscribers to listserv lists are in the academic world.
I sometimes forget that the world is full of people without PhDs since I don't have that much occasion to bump into them.
Of course I believe in research! I want to contribute to the advance of knowledge, preferable as a researcher.
I'm sure many of us are looking for research possibilities here, or at least a place to spark some research ideas...
Tag sales, garage sales, yard sales...are you all familiar with this universal phenomena? I don't know what they call it in New Zealand, but its the meeting ground of two compulsive types: 1) Those who compulsively hope that their garbage will be someone else's treasure and, 2) Those who hope to find a treasure at garbage price.
Most of what has been said and supposedly studied in CMC (lists, newsgroups, computer conferencing, etc) has been anecdotal and subjectively descriptive; not even good ethnography. But, there is good research out there
That it is quite possible I get bored with the academic/professional "diagnosis" type of discussion groups. IMHO, it's often a group of people spouting off a bunch of jargon & dx's they learned in school or something they heard else someone say. This may tick some people off- but it's sort of "brainiac high-brow" discussions that leave me wondering more about the person writing than the subject they are writing about.
A good research project has to have a good research goal. What is ours?
Perhaps as this list goes on, as a group we could compile all of our notes into some kind of paper, or at most a book of some sort detailing our discussions, our theories, or guesses... That would be a ways down the road however.
The internet culture appears to me to be heterogeneous. Extremely so. This is even more illustrated by the CyberSex Culture that dominates the IRC and other chat engines, and the "opposing" Academic Culture which is spread throughout the Net. Each of these has sub-cultures inside of them. The difference in customs between Psyc and Linguistic posters could be only one of these "cultural" differences.
Academics (some of us) saying "but we're not bozos" = the funniest thing I've heard all day; I mean, seriously, look at us -- somewhere in the middle middle quadrant of middle class earning power, hardly fashion statements unless we are "consulting," and taking pride in living **rationally** and being able to analyze EVERYTHING (but the conversation we're in) and when we do, it turns out there's bloody little we *actually* agree on totally, but of course we DO know our DISCIPLINES so cold that we've got letters behind our names and occasionally or regularly flaunt.
I am not of the opinion that an academic or vocational accomplishment in one area demonstrates a wide ranging intelligence and social acumen that entitles one to deference in every situation.
I am disappointed in this group. This has to do with MY expectations and hopes, not this group. DO NOT take this personal. This is my stuff. But, in response to this, I am going to ask here if anyone else is interested in forming a scholarly, academic research oriented disscussion
well, who exactly is supposed to be the performing monkey? so that you may do a "scholarly research". mon cher,
but what you cannot do, is to once-remove yourself. you know why? because of all the lurkers, by whose presence anything you say or do also acquires the added dimension of performance. so, understanding that, the therapist becomes the therapee, clinical detachment is *impossible*, if you are to be an active participant. everyone performs en deshabille, mon cher, everyone.
Rob Higgins sez (doctorally):
Do I sound scholarly enough for the rest of you. I'm someone who has come out of the other end of scholarly - it's good as a resource but not as an end in itself.
I wanted to prepare a linear model outlining the topics of conversation, and more importantly (to me anyway) the flow of conversation from the group.
Professor Barry was *just* trying to offer up suggestions. Many fit in with the researchers' modes; others don't
The International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations
1996 Call for Paper Abstracts and Proposals
applying nonlinear dynamics rigorously to social sciences is difficult. We may have to content ourselves with a metaphorical level of analysis. Still might have practical utility, though, if some principles of online interaction can be derived which can be shown by more traditional analytical methods (statistics in particlar) to make for an effective vs ineffective mailing list or virtual team.
Uh-oh. My research design persona just kicked in! (Was it the word "rigorously" that did it, I wonder? Or "social *sciences*"?) Methodology. Variables. Measurement criteria. Indicators. Theoretical framework. Precise hypotheses. . . . Nah, forget it.
Having said that focusing on 'study' in the sense of producing papers is a sort of red herring, that 'learning from experience' is what is really important to the 'work' we are doing, I have some additional ideas about the more formalized part of 'study.'
I keep thinking of the two graduate programs--education and law--that I drank my way through in years gone by. In both, they proposed to reform my thinking. They downplayed the substance of what I studied in favor of teaching me how to "think like a teacher," "think like a lawyer." I learned much too late in life that teaching me how to think was nothing more than a quick way to of limiting what I could think. If they convinced me to approach problems "their" way, then there was no need to make me memorize facts and procedures. I would always come to industry acceptable conclusions, and could be assured of a comfortable life proving the things everybody in the profession already accepted as true.
My territory is AI/Cognitive simulations, and linguistics. My academic strengths are stats and research design. My training is Univ. of Calif. And Stanford. And I think all of the rest of psychology is nonsense...
Lists full of academics often turn nasty because they bring their academic culture with them. Those used to fighting low stakes petty power struggles in the break rooms and lounges and offices, bring their bad habits to the terminal.
What I do find interesting is that the more educated the people are on a list the more willing they are to put up with disruptive behavior
I did my dissertation research on this topic so I'm not a guy in a diner about the subject.

Found out today I passed the final part of the psychiatry board exams
because of multiloguing and the prevalence of abductive reasoning net scholarship will be pushed more and more toward interdisciplinary approaches
Perhaps the people most likely to enjoy electronic communication are also least likely to engage in self-reflection. (Master's thesis, anyone? :-)
Return to Index