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
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
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
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
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
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
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