February 2004 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

LEA Special Issue: Digital Arts and Electronic Music in Asia and the Pacific
by \"Fats\" Lasay 21 Feb '04

21 Feb '04

Dear colleagues, Please help share the information below to your networks. :) Maraming salamat, Fatima ***************************************************************** ** Sincere apologies for cross-posting ** Please feel free to spread the word widely: LEA Special Issue: Network Leaps, Bounds and Misses: Critiquing Regional Strategies for Digital Arts and Electronic Music in Asia and the Pacific Guest Editor: Fatima Lasay <fats(a)up.edu.ph> The Leonardo Electronic Almanac (ISSN No: 1071-4391) is inviting papers. Under the UNESCO Digi-Arts Knowledge Portal for technology-based arts and music, an international colloquium took place on 4-5 December, 2003 at the Sarai Center for Study of Developing Societies in Delhi, India. The meeting, entitled "Old pathways/New travelers: new media, electronic music and digital art practices in the Asia Pacific region", sought to launch a media arts and electronic music initiative sponsored by UNESCO Digi-Arts and Sarai, to promote and develop research, networking, mutual cooperation, training and knowledge in these fields within the region. The meeting also aimed to point out the role and place of media and technology in a social, cultural and economic landscape inscribed by ancient histories of contact and paths that internally connect the landmass of Asia and the island cultures of the Pacific regions, its impact on young people and its potential as a unique tool to promote cultural diversity. As critical and engaging discussions of such a network of associations are underway, what do our past and current national and regional practices reveal about the limits of localization, proximity and regional reification? What lies beneath or within concepts of media and technology as instruments for promoting cultural diversity? Is media and technology a result or cause of culture? What is the position of media, art and technology in the ontological divide between regionalization and globalization? In which aspects do we need to transcend the regional level in the regional network building efforts? What is the significance of local ontologies within the process of building a regional network? Can asymmetrical local and regional development and promotion of digital arts in the region be addressed by mere institutional and conventional proximity? If geographic proximity is insuficient, then which conceptual spaces might provide a more solid basis for cooperative development? What critical and realistic approaches have been and can be made, in both imagination and actualization, to move in opposite directions and still meet together, across the globe, in building that strong and balanced support structure for digital arts in the region? For the June issue of LEA, we invite contributions from artists, musicians, practitioners, curators and critics that address regional networking competence problems and realities in the field of digital arts and electronic music in the Asia Pacific cultures. LEA encourages international artists / academics / researchers / students to submit their proposals for consideration. We particularly encourage authors outside North America and Europe to send proposals for articles/gallery/artists statements. Proposals should include: - 300 word abstract / synopsis - A brief author biography - Any related URLs - Contact details Deadline for proposals: 31 March 2004 Please send proposals or queries to: Fatima Lasay fats(a)up.edu.ph or Nisar Keshvani LEA Editor-in-Chief lea(a)mitpress.mit.edu http://lea.mit.edu ******************************************************************************** What is LEA? ------------- Established in 1993, the Leonardo Electronic Almanac (ISSN No: 1071-4391) is the electronic arm of the pioneer art journal, Leonardo - Journal of Art, Science & Technology. The Leonardo Electronic Almanac (LEA), jointly produced by Leonardo, the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology (ISAST) and published under the auspices of MIT Press is an electronic journal dedicated to providing a forum for those who are interested in the realm where art, science and technology converge. Content ------- This peer reviewed e-journal includes profiles of media arts facilities and projects, profiles of artists using new media, feature articles comprised of theoretical and technical perspectives; the LEA Gallery exhibiting new media artwork by international artists; detailed information about new publications in various media; and reviews of publications, events and exhibitions. Material is contributed by artists, scientists, educators and developers of new technological resources in the media arts. Mission ------- LEA's mission is to maintain and consolidate its position as a leading online news and trusted information filter while critically examining arts/science & technological works catering to the international CAST (Community of Artists, Scientist and Technologists) ******************************** ===== * Digiteer Art Tech Cult http://digitalmedia.upd.edu.ph/digiteer/ * Discussion Group send email to digiteer-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

1 0

Re: ethnography
by Slater,D 21 Feb '04

21 Feb '04

Hi, I've been out of webshot for a few days, so apologies for responding to several day old postings on this thread. But I did want to pick up a few points. Although it seems to have moved into more generic (and older) critiques of enthnography, I do think these issues are crucial for internet research specifically. Firstly, I agree with much of what Danny wrote, and in particular on being reflexive - and positively *dealing with* - the power relations that constitute our projects of knowledge and representation. If I elided these, as someone else said, it was because I got caught up in polemics. On the other hand, I get worried by phrases like 'the inextricability' of ethnography from colonial mmissionary project. If we accept that all research methodologies constitute and are constituted within power relations, and are therefore political, we also have to accept that all methodologies are political strategies which have to be rethought in shifting political contexts, as strategic interventions - in order to see what will make people's lives better *now*. NO method ensures political purity or non-complicity in power, none can elide these relations. You just deal with them differently in different circumstances. I am not working as an anthropologist under a colonial regime; I am working as a sociologist under a donor dominated neo-imperialism of Washington consensus neo-liberalism, which is dominated by the positivist metrics of audit, indicators, accountancy and globalized discourses of development and information economy. I have to add that all this also dominates the thinking of so many of the Southern intellectuals, academics and activists who are the Ghanaians or Indians or Trinidadians who do have the power to represent themselves in international spaces (hence some of my talk about disagreeing with the people I work with). So obviously I come to exactly the opposite conclusion from Danny: surveys offer *NO* possibibility for people to contest knowledge projects, and - even worse - they produce self-legitimated representations of people, in the form of unchallenged numbers and recommendations, which become unquestioned tools in global governance by IMF, World Bank, etc, etc. My own own funder has huge leverage at the heart of the Ghanaian government through control of a big block of centrally donated money. I promise you now that they will not get from me a single number or summary statement from one of their bloody forms that they can continue to assimilate into their machinery of intervention. I will give them difficult data based on how different people think about themselves. Two days ago, Janet (my Ghanaian colleague) and I were sitting with a poor urban family doing an unstructured interview that took about two hours to go through all the ways they communicate with people (technologies, time, cost, content, etc) plus long conversations about their household finances, problems etc. At the end they asked us if we had anything to do with the guys who had come by the day before with a survey form, who spent the whole time ticking off boxes next to questions that were standardized and made little sense to them. In the conversation that followed, it was abundantly clear that *they* were articulating the difference between a form that demanded they fit into imposed categories, and a conversation in which we explored their lives from within their own categories. And that it was *our* job to work out how to conceptually organise this material afterwards, rather than to force an organization onto it before we even started. They were extremely clear, though using a different language, that they felt misrepresented by the survey guys but that Janet and I were at least trying to understand. And they were most reassured by the fact that we were going to be working in Maamobi for at least a year. Finally, they asked the question that everyone here asks at the end of any research encounter - what will all this do for us? What are you going to do with it all? We explained, as usual, that we don't have any money to give out ourselves but that so much of the spending on ICTs in Ghana as elsewhere is done without any detailed understanding of either how poverty works or how people communicate in these places. Yes, they said, no one bothers to talk to them. Internet research has been too dominated by global ideas that can easily become globalizing, especially when the big development agencies are all buying in to Castellian-style network society metaphors. These ideas - like the equally globalizing poverty discourses - are already inscribed in generic survey and evaluation tools. Is it any wonder that I feel we should cling to ethnographic approaches which in principle seek to represent people at least through a dialogue between 'their' terms and 'ours', and which at least has a long history of grappling reflexively with these issues - even if they are of course insoluble within a world of power - and not pretending they are not there. Don PS - in personal terms, the point I most relate to, below, is trying not to confuse my own desire to know with the need to know what will actually change something. Quite simply, it's all so bloody interesting, but that's not (or shouldn't be) the point. _______________________________________________ Don Slater Reader in Sociology, London School of Economics Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE Tel: +44 (020) 7849 4653 Fax: +44 (020) 7955 7405 http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/slater ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Danny Butt [mailto:db@dannybutt.net] Sent: 17 February 2004 19:47 To: aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: ethnography Kia ora all Well, it's nice that a week or so after me telling Art that he was barking up a particularly unproductive tree on air-l, that Don and Rhiannon come in and starts talking some sense, and more particularly starting to open up the discussion of methodology and its political implications. I'd just like to throw in another angle as my own new media research has encountered the same kinds of questions, the most important one being "Why do qualitative research, and who benefits?". The ethnographic mode has been accepted into the social sciences as a much-needed corrective to the positivism of both standard qualitative and quantitative research methods, but the political implications of it also need to be taken seriously. Paul Willis' "Notes on Method" in Culture, Media, Language (1980) is a good summary - it's a dangerous move to pretend the researchers' basic assumptions can be overthrown by "experience". And the potential for debilitating neo-colonial effects is (in my experience) much greater in this ethnographic mode than in sending out some surveys which communities can more easily ignore if they obviously don't fit. As much as I enjoy Don's work and value it's importance for Internet Studies, I also see many situations where well-intentioned ethnographic work causes grief for both the community of study and the researcher. It's worth holding in mind a) the inextricability of the ethnographic mode with the colonial missionary project and b) the likelihood of unintended consequences over intended ones, and the very different positions of power which are held in the ethnographic encounter. Linda Tuhiwai Smith's "Decolonizing Methodologies" takes up the argument forcefully and should be required reading for anyone considering this kind of work. I'm not writing off ethnography per se, as I think it is incredibly important for researchers to put ourselves into situations outside dominant cultural frameworks. It makes for less problematic assumptions and better understanding (as Don points out). But the bottom line for me is that if the goal is to improve the world, and not just ourselves, we need to find a way of negotiating between the needs and desires of those under study and our own desires for knowledge - and the power imbalances between these. In some cases there's alignment between those two desires, which makes things easier - both 'me' and the 'others/subjects' are working toward explicitly the same thing. Like Don, there are also situations where I think the 'others' are wrong, but I'd add an important consideration to the idea that we can just "tell each other" about the wrongness: the bottom line is that Don comes and talks to us about Ghanaians without them necessarily being present. The effects of the circulation of this knowledge in western academia (and related appendages e.g. into development policy), away from explicit dialogue with the research subjects, can have a far greater impact on the subjects' community than their dialogue without us present can have on us. No first world ethnographer ever lost their job for their informants not being happy with how they are represented, but there are plenty of examples of such impacts (and worse) happening in researched communities due to research publications (e.g. in this part of the world, Cook's mapping practices). My simple point is this: the "benefits" of research projects to those under study (or, in too many less-reflexive cases, to "the world") are routinely treated as self-evident by researchers, yet the experience of those being researched is more often a betrayal of trust, loss of control, and unintended consequences. Research is a powerful way of telling stories, and the key issue from my POV in methodological concerns is not "which method" but "how are the power relationships here being circulated through my methodological choices?". x.d -- http://www.dannybutt.net > Slater,D wrote on 12/2/04 12:54 AM: > >> It might get boring to people to keep banging on about ethnography, >> but it seems to me the only way of subsuming both concepts and >> numbers within a meaningful engagement with the concrete diversity of >> social constructions of technology and people. Slater,D wrote on 16/2/04 7:40 AM: > That's a problem to get our teeth into. My own feeling is that we've > got false alternatives here: it's not a matter of either imposing > northern theory on 'them' or else taking their accounts as 'truth'. I > tend to think of ethnography as dialogic (or even dialectical) - as in > Gadamer's 'fusion of horizons'. I've never been able to articulate it > very well, but as Rhiannon says, we as researchers are always part of > the frame, trying to understand the people we are talking with, and > hoping to make that understanding mnore and more sensitive and > complete, but we never escape ourselves, nor should we. At best, the > ethnographic encounter - like any really intense conversation - shakes > us up and changes us (and in some cases, 'them' too). You *respond* to > experiences, you don't accept them at face value. (though I'll confess > that I've often found my biggest problem is indeed getting > overenthusiastic about the people I > study) > I'm also quite comfortable to disagree with the people I research, or > think they are wrong, or that they are doing something other than what > they think they are doing. After all ethnography is not interviews. It > cannot be ethnography until what people say and what they do, and the > tensions between the two, are brought within the same frame (not to > prove them liars or deluded, but to flesh out *practice* in toto). > Moreover, I've always felt it was a mark of deeper respect for people to > believe that everyone is intelligent and autonomous enough to be argued > with, and to believe that they can be wrong! I hope they treat me that > way too. > > Just one other thought along these lines - my last few projects have > all involved working with local researchers. Their job is very > difficult as they are both part of the 'community' and at the same > distanced (often by class and education, but mainly by the stance > required by the research). Ethnographyt is definitely a dialectic of > closeness and distance, and while I am worried by my distance, they > are actually plagued by their closeness. I've come out of this feeling > that there is a lot to be said about the older anthropology of > strangers coming to learn a culture (given plenty of safeguards around > issues of power, etc). > _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

1 0

re: ethnography
by Slater,D 21 Feb '04

21 Feb '04

Have to say that I simply do not recognize Danny's 'model' (or model number 1). Or, rather, I recognise it as a purely bad model which is in practice almost as impossible as a purely good one. Questions about things like ICTs and poverty are not framed within a purely academic context (or you can only do this by ignoring just about everything that is going on around you). My current questions in Ghana (and just tell me to shut up about my own research when you get sick of it - it's just easier for me to respond concretely) are framed by an incredible mix of discourses(which are in constant dialogue with each other) including governmental, NGO, academic, business, activists, etc, etc. And quite frankly, 'the question' is pretty broad, broad enough to contain and respond to all the themes and ideas that seem worth pursuing, which changes over time and in response to the project itself. Major consituencies in Ghana are in constant debate over ICTs and development - eg, a daily subject is, can Ghana skip industrialization and move straight from agricultural economy to information economy. I've had these conversations in slum households. For all kinds of reasons, the questions being asked here are not so very different from the ones being asked in my seminars back home (or in my own living room). When I stress ethnography as dialogue (including disagreement) that's partly what I mean - we are in some respects living very much in the same world, with similar issues, though we might (sometimes) put them rather differently. I don't know any ethnographer who looks at people as 'others' who have answers to 'our' questions. Partly because the point is to find out what 'their' questions are; partly because it is not usual to put ethnography into a Q/A format. The metaphor is more pictorial - what picture is emerging as to what is going on. We've spent much of the last two weeks here trying to figure out the best ways to have conversations about household finances. This doesn't mean finding the right button to press to release the information I want. It means learning about how people calculate, categorize, worry, aspire, plan, etc. You don't find 'answers'; you learn to draw. The question of representation starts at the very beginning. As to stage 3, yes I bloody well better take responsibility for how I present that picture, and we all agree that I have huge power to paint as I like and sign my name to it. I'm tempted to say firstly that at least unlike other methods it is *my* name at the bottom; I can't pretend, as in other approaches, that my picture is the result of an objective technical process (I would love to see some of the surveys I've been involved in presented as ethnographies are, with all the fuck-ups, guess work, bodges, etc, all itemised). But because an ethnography is presented that way, it is saying - 'dispute me', challenge me, tell a different story. As to how that story relates to the people I am representing: dunno. I predict that some Ghanaian academics will disagree and others will find it useful; that some activists will agree and others disagree, on incredibly varied grounds. That it will be irrelevant or incomprehensible to most of those people I did my primary research with, but that that is not the only point; that within my own funding agency some the report will be either ignored or slammed or championed as a symbol of new ways of knowing, etc. etc. I'm not saying anything new am I? Pretty obvious: I'll write a lot of different things for very different audiences with lots of different upshots. Perhaps a more interesting answer is that in my last project, with UNESCO, Jo Tacchi and I developed an approach called 'ethnographic action research' (you have to have a brand in development work these days) which involved integrating research within the project development of the nine projects in South Asia we were working with. This incorporated a basic toolkit of methods framed in a generally ethnographic way. And implemented through researchers who had no ethnographic background and were simultaneously development workers. We supported them through training workshops and field visits, as well as online dialogues (website, chat, listserve). Very mixed results, but basically: 1. ethnnography made complete sense to people, and was most effective in valorizing people's knowledge and their ways of knowing - instead of throwing out what they knew through experiences because it was not 'objective' or survey based, ethnography helped them structure their knowledge and methods - a conversation with a computer user, when written up as fieldnotes and brought within some frame of analysis, was no longer just a conversation or experience, it was part of a knowledge project that was in tune with developing their development project. 2. Yes, getting the researchers involved in the analysis of all this material is difficult and often feels to them remote from the practicalities of project development, but at least there is a structure to talk about what conclusions seem to make sense, and tryin gout different languages for the analysis. 3. To use the dreaded term 'capacity building', as the project comes to a finish we are leaving behind a group of trained and experienced researchers into ICTs and poverty who can do whatever they want with these experiences and ideas. Some want to move into postgraduate work, some into more develo0pment work, etc, etc. They will develop their ideas and approaches in whatever way they think is appropriate. Final point - I get worried about the idea of thinking of people as either owning or excluded from knowledge or 'knowledge infrastructures', as you put it below. It's a bit like older thinking about the digital divide, haves or have nots. Without eliding power issues, isn't it dangerous to replicate these black and white metaphors (I use the racial language advisedly) because they simply replicate the absolutes of oppressors and victims, masters and slaves, powerful and powerless. I have only to walk down the street here to be fully aware of poverty and lack of power. But I have only to get into conversations on any of these streets to learn about the knowledge infrastructures and knowledge strategies that people are using and building on. The job is to see how to help that building, not to convince people that they are helpless victims and that we feel the proper guilt - that is simply disempowering. don _______________________________________________ Don Slater Reader in Sociology, London School of Economics Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE Tel: +44 (020) 7849 4653 Fax: +44 (020) 7955 7405 http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/slater ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Danny Butt [mailto:db@dannybutt.net] Sent: 18 February 2004 12:04 To: aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] re: ethnography Thanks all for the comments... against my better judgement I'll clarify some points: I'm not anti-ethnography. Don posted, with understandable impatience, a "rant" which essentially said "stop working yourself up over this or that method or conceptual framework for new media and find out what happens and start there", which is an excellent point and one pretty well rehearsed since cultural studies in old media theory. Rhiannon raised some excellent issues around the position of researchers in that framework, and Don once again responded with some useful commentary, but one I didn't feel paid much attention to a whole lot of dialogue happening (among First nations peoples in particular, who have a lot of experience as ethnographic subjects) which questions the power dynamic in this kind of research. I'm not saying that Don isn't aware of these issues, and as he notes, the real experience of "being there" raises all sorts of questions that can't be foreclosed "in theory". But as a methodological practice I tend to notice what we say when we're not being entirely "considered", as this says a lot about our overall approach to being in situations (something ethnographers know well). [And as Mary suggests, my own "improving the world" quote, while not serious, also raises interesting discussions around my positioning :7]. So I just don't see the point of denying (as I feel Maximillian is) or eliding (as I feel Don was) the power dynamic intrinsic in ethnographic research (and other social research as Ed suggested). The model is: 1) There's a question, framed in an academic context, which I as a researcher don't have the answer to (the answer is therefore exotic) 2) The answer is held by others, who will surrender it (or something like it, but altered by my "experience") under observation 3) I will, more or less depending on my positioning, take responsibility for this answer's circulation in an environment where it will be "meaningful" but not controlled by those who held the answer. Who controls what's important here? I don't see any value in contrasting the "experience" of having a gun to your head in a particular situation where you might not have been in control, to the very different temporality of control which comes from "deciding" to go somewhere for an "ethnographic encounter". The ethnographer can, after all, always go home from the research situation. All I'm asking for from those privileging ethnography as a research method is some sensible dialogue around those issues, and being honest about what we want. The point I'm pressing becomes more obvious if I outline another way of conceiving of cross-cultural research: 1) There are issues identified by people who are excluded from knowledge infrastructures (and associated academic salaries) such as Universities 2) A researcher is engaged by those people as a way of gaining access to particular forms of knowledge, money, and representation that might address these issues 3) Reporting on the "results" of this quest for knowledge, money, and representation goes back to the people (but there may also, for "ethical or pragmatic reasons" be a report given to the institutions which are the home of the researcher). I am not saying that all the cross-cultural interaction and research I'm associated with follows the second model (and, to be honest, I couldn't handle it if it was). But it seems to me that this way of conceiving of "ethnography" is worthy of consideration, and it might also helpfully muddy the methodological waters a little to disrupt the "Read chapter 6 to discover the 'ethnography' method which might be appropriate for *your* project" line, which is altogether too routine in our academic systems. So to Jon's suggestion that I "need to suggest an alternative research strategy without these problems" , I would say: the desire for no problems is the problem. [Or, perhaps, "Hey, ditch that problematic old ethnography, and sign-up for a one-year license of the DannyButt research method, pre-approved for your convenience by 756 global NGOs representing severely disadvantaged groups, and through our affiliate network covering 96% of groups worldwide claiming potential damage through research. Speed up those tiresome ethics committees, and get to the *real research* faster!"] As Haraway puts it, ethnography should not be seen as a "method" to be "applied" but a way of being radically open to the forces structuring a situation. My perception - which is significantly influenced by ongoing conversations with those not defining research situations - is that research situations are generally dominated by our basic assumptions as researchers, and the only way of really dealing with this is to be as clear as possible about what these assumptions are (which is to say, if you're confident about the benefits of your research for your subjects, and your immunity from the historical forces that shaped your methods, you probably need to spend some more time in the library before heading out). I don't know if anyone cares about this stuff and I've got that feeling like I misread the dress code for the party, so I'll finish up there. Big thanks to Mary for the Visweswaran reference which I didn't know about! x.d -- http://www.dannybutt.net ------ Forwarded Message From: Ed Lamoureux <ell(a)hilltop.bradley.edu> Strikes me that the key issue/question here is about what one is studying. If one is studying the meanings-in-use-for-subjects, ------ Forwarded Message From: Mary Bryson <mary.bryson(a)ubc.ca> Dunno about the goal of "improving the world". I very much appreciate the ongoing discussion about ethnography and media studies. I have found Kamala ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ Forwarded Message From: Maximilian Forte <mcforte(a)kacike.org> Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:58:07 -0400 To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: ethnography (A) there is nothing inherently "colonial" about the practice of ethnography. How ethnography is done, by which agents, in which historical contexts, and for what purposes is what matters. I think we risk confusing the histortical origins of anthropology with field methods. (B) There is no law, that I know of, that will convince me that unintended consequences are more likely than intended ones. What is the basis for the assertion? Finally, the issue of power differentials has been hammered to death and I was never really impressed by the lack of realism of these arguments. I have conducted research with people who could buy and sell me at a whim, other who could have snuffed me out at the snap of the fingers, and others that had over three decades of experience in dealing with the media, politicians, ministries, or who were themselves political leaders. I was some kid getting an "anthro" degree. There are power differentials, sure, but not necessarily in the single direction you suggest. ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ Forwarded Message From: Jonathan Marshall <Jonathan.Marshall(a)uts.edu.au> Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:09:42 +1100 To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: ethnography Fair enough :) but ethnography tends to bring you face to face with these issues in a way in which other techniques, to my knowledge do not. It is all very well to argue ethnography is not perfect, and i certainly agree, it can't be - this is what doing ethnography has 'taught' us - but perhaps you need to suggest an alternative research strategy which does not have these problems. ------ End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

1 0

RE: [Air-l] re: ethnography
by Slater,D 21 Feb '04

21 Feb '04

I now see that Maximilian made all of my points in about a third of the number of words - this is exactly right. don _______________________________________________ Don Slater Reader in Sociology, London School of Economics Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE Tel: +44 (020) 7849 4653 Fax: +44 (020) 7955 7405 http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/slater ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Maximilian Forte [mailto:mcforte@kacike.org] Sent: 18 February 2004 14:01 To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] re: ethnography So I just don't see the point of denying (as I feel Maximillian is) or eliding (as I feel Don was) the power dynamic intrinsic in ethnographic research (and other social research as Ed suggested). I don't feel that I was denying power relations--I was actually expanding on them. What I did say is that power relations are not just uni-directional, except in simplistic and conspiratorial critiques that themselves deny a voice to those whose experiences suggest something very different. It all depends on what kind of indviduals and groups you are working with: if they are hapless little children, then I could see why we would be concerned about the presumed omnipotence of the ethnographer. If you are working against such subjects, or with the aim of getting data and then dumping them as soon as possible, then again I could see where research subjects may be marginalized, excluded, etc--but they may also be very relieved to be rid of you. They may also be realists and realize that whatever is written about them in academia matters little because, after all, reports buried in specialist journals can almost be considered "private" discussions given the general population's lack of interest in these publications. There is also ethnography in the action research mode, strong forms of collaboration, etc., that simply make rubbish of the sometimes overwrought critiques of ethnography. The answers are not to be found in libraries "before you head out there": it's a matter of not being too naive--we are not these overwhelmingly important, omnipotent centres of the universe that we believe ourselves to be, a view which is perhaps flattering to ourselves. I am concerned about anyone thinking in patronizing or condescending terms of our so-called informants, ignoring their own actual power. If one of the main questions you ask yourself as researchers while engaged in field work is "am I an oppressor" (instead of "am I a pawn"), then I would go as far as saying that you are deluding yourself, or that you should quit the research and pick on someone your own size :) Cheers, Dr Maximilian C. Forte Assistant Professor in Anthropology Department of Anthropology and Sociology University College of Cape Breton P.O. Box 5300, Sydney, NS, Canada, B1N 1A3 Tel: 902-563-1947 Fax: 902-563-1247 E-mail: max_forte(a)uccb.ca Website: http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/mforte/ _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

1 0

space
by Greg Elmer 21 Feb '04

21 Feb '04

_Space and Culture_ would welcome proposals for a special issue on this "Space" thread (since there seems to be much interest). Please contact me offlist. See link to the journal below. Greg -- Greg Elmer Associate Professor Department of Communication Florida State University 356 Diffenbaugh Tallahassee, FL 32303 850.645.4692 (tel.) Co-Editor Space and Culture: An International Journal of Social Spaces http://www.carleton.ca/space/ ________________________________________________________________________________

4 6

enjoyed Toronto? return for Open Source conference
by bernie.hogan＠utoronto.ca 20 Feb '04

20 Feb '04

Hi Everyone,

1 0

CFP:ICWL2004 at Tsinghua University Beijing, Aug 8-11,2004
by ICWL2004 20 Feb '04

20 Feb '04

Dear collegue, This e-mail is a reminder for submitting papers to ICWL2004 (see instructions below) which has submission open till April 1, 2004. All accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings as a volume of Springer's LNCS. Any help in distributing this announcement would be most appreciated. Please see the conference webpage at http://www.icwl2004.org for details. ICWL2004 Program Committee Co-Chairs CALL FOR PAPERS The 3rd International Conference on Web-based Learning http://www.icwl2004.org August 8-11, 2004 Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Organized by : Tsinghua University, The Hong Kong Web Society Sponsored by : City University of Hong Kong, IEEE-CS Beijing, China eLearning Technology Standards Committee, The rapidly growing demand for e-learning is forcing educational institutions to expand in remote learning through the Web in terms of technological and pedagogical development. The successful application of e-learning provides enhancements in workforce performance, helps to lower cost, and encourages innovation. This conference aims at providing an in-depth study of the technical, pedagogical, as well as management issues of Web-based learning. ICWL2004 will bring together educators, researchers, technologists and implementers of Web-based learning from around the world to discuss the state of the art in this area. The technical program will feature keynote addresses, tutorials, special sessions, panels, technical demonstrations, in addition to technical presentations of refereed papers. We cordially invite you to submit your work in one or more of above forms for, but not limited to, the following areas: Topics 1. e-Learning Platforms & Tools 1.1 System Architecture 1.2 Real-time Instruction Technology 1.3 Media Streaming 1.4 Quality Management in e-Learning 1.5 Courseware Building Tool 1.6 Virtual Laboratory Building Tool 1.7 Collaborative Learning Enabling Technology 2. Learning Recourse Deployment, Organization and Management 2.1 Knowledge Management for e-Learning 2.2 Digital Libraries for e-Learning 2.3 Management of Learning Resources 2.4 Database Architecture for Web-based learning 2.5 Multimedia databases for Web-based learning 3. Practice and Experience Sharing 3.1 Concepts and Examples of Good Practices 3.2 Innovative Curriculum in e-Learning 3.3 Virtual University 3.4 Virtual Classroom 3.5 Virtual Laboratories 3.6 Collaborative Learning 3.7 Organizational e-Learning Strategy 3.8 Teaching, Learning and Assessment Strategy 3.9 Measuring and charging 3.10 Industry-Institute Partnership 3.11 Web-based Training for Customers 3.12 Community Building for e-Learning 4. e-Learning Standards 4.1 E-learning Standards from Standard Organizations 4.2 E-learning Specifications from Industry Alliances 4.3 Implementation Profiles 4.4 Standard Practice Technology and Experience 5. Pedagogical Issues 5.1 Instructional Design for e-Learning 5.2 Evaluation/Performance Measurement & Assessment 5.3 Research Perspectives in e-Learning Strategy 6. Other Related Topics Paper Submission Conference Proceedings will be published as a volume of Springer's LNCS. Please refer to Springer author's kit at http://www.icwl2004.org/authorkit for the format . Note that each paper should not exceed 8 pages. Please submit your paper on-line to http://www.icwl2004.org, along with no more than 3 topic area numbers above for reviewing. Important Dates 1 April, 2004 Deadline for paper submissions 1 May, 2004 Notification for Acceptance 15 May, 2004 Deadline for Submitting Camera-Ready Version of Full Papers 1 July 2004 Deadline for (Early) Registration 8-11 August, 2004 Conference Dates

1 0

use soundscriber for digital recordings
by Davis, Boyd 20 Feb '04

20 Feb '04

Mark, I record digitally (I alternate between using SONY portable DAT and dumping to CD and Olympus digital hand-held, and uploading to computer) In either case, I and the staff of ProjectMORE all use UMich's Soundscriber ProjectMORE http://education.uncc.edu/more Soundscriber www.lsa.umich.edu/eli/micase/soundscriber.html Yours, Boyd Davis

1 0

International Internet
by Randolph Kluver (Assoc Prof) 20 Feb '04

20 Feb '04

I am trying to find some research on how people use the internet "internationally," in terms of international email, etc, or the national boundaries of the Internet, in terms of use. I am not looking for theoretical discussions of "cyberspace" for those of you who might still not have recovered from the last one, but rather specific data concerning how the internet facilitates international contacts, primarily for personal, rather than advocacy purposes. Any leads would be appreciated! Randolph Kluver Singapore Internet Research Centre School of Communication and Information Nanyang Technological University Singapore 637718 phone (65) 6790-5770 http://www.ntu.edu.sg/sci/sirc/home.asp

2 1

Gibson on Gibson
by Alex Kuskis 20 Feb '04

20 Feb '04

I forgot I had this, which I posted to the Media Ecology list a couple of months ago. I post it here in connection with Barry Wellman's recent search for the source of the William Gibson quote......Alex Kuskis William Gibson: No Maps for These Territories (2001) I rented a DVD (it is also available in VHS) from our local Blockbuster outlet the other day that I recommend as being McLuhanist and media ecological. This documentary focuses on writer William Gibson discussing how he coined the word "cyberspace", ruminating about media as extensions, as well as our media-saturated world (which is what the title refers to). Here is a description: Mark Neale directs this prolonged conversation with William Gibson (famed science-fiction novelist and creator of the term "cyberspace") from the back of Gibson's limousine as they take a cross-country odyssey over nameless highways going no place in particular. The cameras roll as Gibson talks about his own personal philosophies, experiences, and opinions about the media-saturated culture in which we live. The conversation provides a compelling glimpse at the radical, genius writer whose 1984 novel NEUROMANCER forever changed the concept of the Internet, propelling the author to the forefront of the media explosion of the late 20th Century. Neale, a music video director, employs hyper speed editing and jarring visuals that combines various media images with excerpts of Gibson's novels, conveying a conceptual journey through the unchartered territory of William Gibson's mind. This slick and stylish visual trip also features interviews with writers Jack Womack and Bruce Sterling, readings from U2's Bono and The Edge, and music from Tomandandy. Here is Amazon.com's listing: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000D0YT5/103-9346991-903824… And here is a review of the film: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1107084/reviews.php?critic=all&so… It is quite worth the price of a rental..............Alex

1 0