March 2002 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Researching over the line/horizon? - the great forgetting?
by Lachlan Brown 17 Mar '02

17 Mar '02

Calm down, calm down. Offensive academic inquiry? What a novel idea. Stepping over the 'line'? Since when has academic inquiry been required to remain within known bounds? Address the questions! [perhaps I should have edited the 'lonely-heart seeks similar' section from my CV...it is better to give love than to constantly seek it] The Air-L already has a set of protocols: academic and IT related. I can assure you that the bounds of permitted discourse are very highly policed. I have already skirmished a number of times with the forces of moderation. It is significant that these forces pretend not to exist in this capacity. I have already received one hint of litigation. Great stuff. A hint that, invoking the discourse of the legal profession if I may briefly digress, has no grounds and on the contrary leaves he who hinted open to similar. I think the question to be addressed regarding the range of permissible questions and the acceptability of approach is whether this policing is to be derived from an academic discourse, or whether a 'set of rules' developed contingent to the emergence of online communication aided by a technology of distributed computing within highly specialized conditions and communities is to prevail over this discussion and inquiry. The point is not a minor one. This, it appears, is a list representing the state of academic inquiry into Internet. The state of academic inquiry has been questioned. By me. Regardless of method, regardless of offence, regardless of reaction, notwithstanding any breach to good sense and sound reason, and certainly without deference of 'polite society'. People in industry, government, and in the general public look to this Association to provide meaningful information to help to inform them in their respective fields and duties. The production of wealth, governance, the sharing in our common well-being. I would prefer that an academic discourse which here it seems, going by the mandate of AoIR, is the discourse of the study of culture, is privileged over an IT related 'discourse' dependant upon a 'nettiquette'. The reason is this: there are significant gaps, oversights and repressions in research into Internet. The responsibility of an academic research community, of which this list is a part, is to consider a range of modes of approach and lines of enquiry so that questions that may have been overlooked may be identified, so that resources may be allocated and applied to their research and study. An academic community, of which this list is part, has a responsibility to broader society to inform and to educate. It is in a dialogue with this broader culture, it is in a contractual relationship with the society formed of this dialogue, the social contract. I am all for rules. Believe me I am far from Anarchy on the question of intellectual inquiry. However, I believe the list already has a sets of rules, rules laid down during centuries of academic and scholarly inquiry and rules set out to promote inquiry where there is none. Ignore these rules at your very, very great peril. The Association of Internet Researchers has, it seems, chosen a cultural studies mandate. This mandate promotes inter-disciplinarity, that is it requires of us, whatever our specialism, and whatever our ideological position on the question of whether qualitative or quantitive methods of analysis provide greatest purchase in the age-long quest for knowledge [for the grail, no less], to be open to the ideas, opinions and to research approaches. Again, this inter-disciplinarity is to a purpose. With regard to the rules of academic inquiry: I propose that the discourse, the modes of approach and the means of critical analysis of cultural studies prevail here. The reason is that this inter-disciplinarity of cultural studies, far from being an innovative approach as it is often assumed to be, speaks to broader society. This speaking to, or dialogue with, broader society, church, state, commerce is not particularly a new idea. It first appeared in its familiar form in a directive of the Fourth Lateran Council: an instruction that the 'leered teeche the lewd', in their own language, all methods and means considered, without undue deference to the authority of Latin, or the authority of the Church at that time, or to put it plainly: the educated have a responsibility to inform the uneducated in all matters. The european adaptation of the Islamic model of the University, and much beside, was an outcome of this welcome innovation in culture. The College of the Sorbonne was I think the first University an idea that spread. Are we now to embark upon a great forgetting of the work that brought us to this place? For the sake of nettiquette whatever that is? Simply to make things easier for the world of 'information technology', information and knowledge management and administration, and computing? I think not. I am considered provocative in my approach. This is a curious word and it is true that I did once say to Nikolas Rose, a Professor at Goldsmiths College that my web publication 'difference engine' was provocative, but this was in the context of the very early days of WWW (Jan 1996) and the purpose was to discover the points where the host server and the host institution correlated, and where they did not. By provoking, one found out where boundaries lay, and one found out where there were none. I do not think my research approach is provocative at all. Now, where's my stipend, bursary, budget? Lachlan Brown -- _______________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Travelocity.com is giving away two million travel miles. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;3969773;6991039;g?http://svc.travelocity.com/…

1 0

Re:[Air-l] re: Lachlan's CV (or stepping OVER the line)
by A Halavais 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

As a dedicated lurker, I've been reluctant to add more grist to an already overproducing mill. Two brief observations: 1. There is nothing wrong with a set of explicit guidelines, though I'm not at all sure that is the main issue. The question remains how we as a community (a majority?) wish to enforce these guidelines. 2. I hope we won't turn a molehill into a mountain. A great deal of delete-worthy email has been found in responses to Mr. Brown's often annoying (in my extraordinarily humble opinion) posts. Those responses are rarely more enlightening. While Mr. Brown's emails can easily be discarded (filtered), the discussion surrounding them cannot. I propose that if some of the topics being raised are not of general interest for discussion on the list, we stop discussing them. I think the best short-term solution is to read selectively. I suspect we all have daily email far into the hundreds of messages. I for one am willing to spend the moment it takes to delete unwanted email, rather than risk the potential chilling effects of moderation. - Alex > Mary and others, the executive committee has been discussing this a > lot lately, so don't feel your concerns have gone unnoticed. I think > it's fair to say that if there is a consensus amongst list members > that we need to create a new standard of guidelines and means of > enforcing them, we are open to doing that. My preference has been to > let the list speak first.

1 0

re: Lachlan's CV (or stepping OVER the line)
by Mary L. Gray 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

Hello folks, I'm reluctant to draw this list anymore off-course than it appears to be careening, but I feel a line has been crossed that (to me) should not go unnoticed. A member of the list (Susan) asked Lachlan Brown about his academic background (which, reasonably could have been requested in a personal email, but hey, it didn't seem to be an inappropriate question--just possibly a bit off-topic). Mr. Brown chose to respond in what I take at points to be an unprofessional tone that to my U.S. sensibilities smacks of (hetero)sexist sarcasm. I am hoping there are at least a few people who find it inappropriate/unproductive to write something of a mock personal ad that states things like "I like Russian women presently" and "I am single and I am looking, but I am very picky. Any pics, 'susan'? hmmm.." If you were checking out AIR-L for the first time and came across these comments (or any of Brown's postings for that matter), would you 1) have a sense of what this list was for and 2) would you want to bother joining it? I think AIR (and AIR leadership) should have some interest in maintaining a professional, respectful atmosphere associated with the AIR list. There was a brief discussion of the dynamics of lists and whether moderated lists squelched productive, vibrant communication flows. Theoretically, in an unmoderated group, everyone can have their say. But, practically speaking, (just as in the off-line world) if there are a few loud voices that take up the speaking space, other voices are essentially silenced (or silence themselves by leaving) in the process. I think we're assuming the idealistic Habermasian "public sphere" transfers neatly to online spaces...and that's an assumption worth critiquing (see Nancy Fraser's smart critiques of the offline possibilities). Brown's unchecked involvement in this list has certainly left me (for one) feeling steadily less interested in participating in the list or recommending AIR-L to colleagues. We are all here to learn from and with each other. Brown's past list submissions have added very little to this learning and his last posting was nothing short of an affront to the list's intentions IMHO. (I should say, I am learning quite a bit from the exchanges and developments of this list--and from Brown's participation...but, honestly, I can learn about sexism, insecurities and egocentrism within academia anywhere. I'd rather be able to turn to this list for more intellectual conversation re: the internet/new media research). So, now that I've vented on that, I'd like to ask the AIR members and leadership to rethink/reconsider our stand on guidelines for posting to this list (I really appreciated Geert Lovink's comments re: the value of facilitation on this point). I'd be happy to work on the drafting of such guidelines (I've been the co-moderator of a thriving USENET newsgroup for queer and questioning youth [soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi] since 1994 so, I'd be glad to share what I've learned along the way). Sincerely, Mary L. Gray ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mary L. Gray <mlgray(a)ucsd.edu> Department of Communication University of California, San Diego mail: PO Box 4004, Louisville, KY 40204 http://weber.ucsd.edu/~mgray ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > From: "Lachlan Brown" <lachlan(a)london.com> > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:27:33 -0500 > Subject: [Air-l] Lachlan's CV > I like horseback riding (most weekends), impromtou skiing and winter fun, > winter activities in general, log rolling, > walks through the snowy woods, bracing winds, contemplating the many, many > different patterns of snowflake, I like Russian women > presently. > I am single and I am looking, but I am very picky. Any pics, 'susan'? hmmm... > [I think this list needs a resource containing > research interests and institutional locations of members and contributors, as > well as a > photo of each member. I mean, identity and > bodies kind of matter don't you think?].

5 4

The list
by Steve Jones 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

Be assured that the AoIR executive committee has been discussing the issue of whether to have posting guidelines for some time. While none of us condone unethical and inappropriate behavior, we do have a dilemma (or more than one, perhaps). While we can filter e-mail that comes from an individual, one can just as easily change addresses and re-post. Making the entire list moderated (so that each message is "screened" by someone before posting) is a possibility, but will make the list less synchronous than it is, and, depending on future list traffic, may require considerable effort. (For the record, I find that air-l has been relatively low-traffic). And how will someone feel about the moderator, the possibility of moderating being agenda-driven, the possibility that such a possibility will cause someone to second-guess the motives of an agenda-less moderator, etc.? My thinking about e-mail lists in general is that, without engagement, those who post inappropriately end up finding another list to bother with. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I don't think it would be hard to filter messages one's self, that is, without resorting to technological means, by looking at who they are from. An important thing to keep in mind is that there is also the potential issue of AoIR, as an incorporated not-for-profit, to in some ways become "exclusive." A condition of our gaining permanent 501(c)(3) status from the U.S. office of the I.R.S. is to not put up significant barriers to membership and to be a "public" organization, and I'd be a bit concerned that by keeping people from "speaking" we'd have another serious issue on our hands. Another way to put that is that we are not "just" a list. On the one hand we routinely engage in such exclusion, for instance by virtue of choosing which papers are accepted to our conference. On the other hand we are up front about so doing, and there is a process, involving more than one person, of determining who is invited to the conference to speak. But we don't prevent anyone from attending the conference and speaking during Q&A, for instance. These, among other things (such as attentiveness to the variety of understandings of what "guidelines" are), are the kinds of things we've been grappling with. I'll be happy to hear from anyone concerning these matters, preferably (I assume) off-list. Thanks, Sj

1 0

Tragedy of the Commons
by Ken Friedman 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

It is difficult to believe the assertion that no empirical examples exist for a "tragedy of the commons." The destruction of the forested hills of ancient Greece, the reduction of America's aquifers and wetlands, the extinction and near-extinction of hunted species are all examples of a common good or property held in common that has been wasted by over-use under circumstances that fit the "tragedy of the commons" model. Before making the claim that there is no empirical evidence for a loss or extinction among common resources that fluctuate over time, it is helpful to examine empirical evidence with the help of scientists who are qualified to interpret the evidence. This begins with a crisp definition of what is meant by the phrase "tragedy of the commons." Even a fuzzy definition will do if it is reasonable. Historical data from several ten of thousand years of human history clearly offers evidence that this phenomenon occurs -- unless you want to argue that the resource substitution or the continued presence of human creatures is evidence that extinctions and loss are not genuine examples. -- Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Leadership and Organization Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University

1 0

Re: Diaspora Communities
by John Daly 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

http://www.goenkar.com/community/gscp/Default.htm This seems to be an interesting account of the GAO diaspora community collaborating with the stay at homes to equip schools with computer hardware and software, and strengthen schools. -- John Daly http://www.geocities.com/stconsultant/

1 0

trans-national diaspora networks
by Barry Wellman 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

Folks, I'd be grateful if anyone could point me to their (or others') work about how the Internet links trans-national diasporic communities where some folks have migrated from the home country and others haven't. I'm mostly interested in email, but also Internet phone, web boards, Usenet, et al. En passant, the lovely Monsoon Wedding has some nice offhand references to this, as the families come from Houston, Dubai, etc. for a Delhi wedding. Pls reply to me personally, and I will then summarize for the list. Barry ___________________________________________________________________ Barry Wellman Professor of Sociology NetLab Director wellman(a)chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 ___________________________________________________________________

3 2

Re: [Air-l] The Semantic Web
by Rune Dalgaard 16 Mar '02

16 Mar '02

Arthur, I think it is hard to study the social impact of the semantic web as long as it is not implemented or used on a larger scale. Last summer I was at a conference with a panel-debate on the Semantic Web and the views varied widely on the feasibility of the idea. > Has anyone come across any material which takes a critical look at > the social impact of the Semantic Web as envisaged by TIM > BERNERS-LEE, et al.? The basic idea of giving the web (or parts of it) one or more deeper classficatory structure(s) obviously reactualizes discussions about classifications and (because this is a project being promoted by and in AI circles) AI and finally also in philosophy of logic. A social approach to some of the issues of classfication can be found in: Bowker, G. C. &. S., S.L. (1999). Sorting Things Out - Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA & London, UK: The MIT Press. Another approach is to tie it to existing AI discussions going many years back (and not as high profiled as they were in the late 80's), of which Dreyfus' work (as mentioned by Charles Ess) is one important contribution. John Sowa (philosopher) has written some good introductions to classification-systems, knowledge representation etc. see fx. http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/guided.htm Best, Rune ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rune Dalgaard, MA, Doctoral Candidate Dept. of Information and Media Studies, Aarhus University E-mail: runed(a)imv.aau.dk / Web: http://www.imv.au.dk/medarbejdere/runed ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Drefus redux
by Charles Ess 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

Colleagues: I've received some interesting e-mail in response to my recent mini-review of Dreyfus' book, _On the Internet_ - one more negative than not. Fair enough - indeed, what such a list is for! I've replied to the critic privately in what were intended to be appreciative and gentle tones. Part of my reply, I think, is worth posting here - not so much for its quality (come on - it's e-mail!), but because I would appreciate responses to especially my more general claims from folk on this list who will certainly know better than I. [One caveat: I do not sketch out or more fully characterize Dreyfus' analysis below. I'm still working through my notes, etc., - if I get a good summary that might be useful, I'll pass it along.] ...I find his analysis of what happens on the Internet to be relatively complete and well-informed. Indeed, some of his claims are supported by such Gurus as Andrew Lippman, co-founder of the MIT Media Lab (see the February, 2002, issue of Syllabus, p. 13) as well as by a fair body of research on CMC, online communities, etc. (In particular, see "Comparing Conceptual and Technique Learning Performance in Place-based and ALN Format," Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks (5: 2 - September 2001). <http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol5_issue2/Parker/ParkerGemino.htm>, including their conclusion that "Students taking the virtual seminar scored significantly lower on the technique section of the final exam than place-based students," - which is consistent with what Dreyfus _does_ see as the limitations of distance learning). None of this is to say that I dispute your abilities or your experience teaching online. I've been using hypertext and CMC technologies in my teaching for more than a decade, and there's no question that - especially in the hands of an enthusiastic and skilled instructor - some great things can be accomplished, and in some ways, better than in a place-based setting. But so far as I know, the evidence on the strengths and limits of distance learning is still emerging. Indeed, I've seen a remarkable turn from the hype of five or six years ago - distance learning will make bricks and mortar universities obsolete - to a much more balanced view, including greater use of "blended" courses that make use of both place-based and distance teaching. One of the reasons I find Dreyfus worth working through is that his analysis of how we learn as _embodied_ creatures helps explain a good portion of the research I've seen that suggests, indeed, some things we learn much better in a face-to-face situation. O.k. - my shields are up; fire away! Cheerfully, Charles Ess Director, Interdisciplinary Studies Center Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC 2002: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/catac02/ "...to be non-violent, we must not wish for anything on this earth which the meanest and lowest of human beings cannot have." -- Gandhi

1 0

re: tragedy of commons/tragedy of capital
by Lachlan Brown 15 Mar '02

15 Mar '02

I will let you know about it when the study is concluded, this is conditional upon whether the commons or capital prevails in this instance. Lachlan -- _______________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Travelocity.com is giving away two million travel miles. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;3969773;6991039;g?http://svc.travelocity.com/…

1 0