September 2006 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: [Air-l] online education effectiveness
by Caroline Haythornthwaite 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

As with most applications of CMC, the question is not really whether programs are effective or cost effective, but how to do it best anyway. Sloan-C supported a lot of work in the US with the aim of proving that teaching and learning was possible via asynchronous learning (ALN for asynchronous learning networks), and then to see about cost effectiveness. In general, most would agree about the former, but also that it is not (yet?) a cost saving. Indeed, many wonder why educational institutions should be trying to make a cheaper model of education. The flip side is why should educational institutions be so expensive and thus exclude others. Research -- lots of journals, from the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks to many Education journals, and work in CMC journals. Plus, Sloan-C reports, National School Board and department of education reports. Main effectiveness reference is the No Significant Difference work (http:// www.nosignificantdifference.org/) showing no difference in learning outcomes online vs off. Hence it is 'as good as' ftf/offline. More subtle effectiveness work points out the greater reach of online, advantages for those with different learning styles (e.g., the reflexivity possible in online venues, and ability to review materials), opportunities to be embedded in local work and community, and the variety of mediated options that increase variety of educational means. There are several notable large scale failures of programs at the university level (e.g., UK eU), but many success stories at the program/degree level. UIUC is currently proposing a 'Global Campus' -- we're waiting to see if the board approves the money. /Caroline ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:23:45 +0100 (BST) >From: Heidi Campbell <hcampbe1(a)yahoo.co.uk> >Subject: Re: [Air-l] online education effectiveness >To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > >Hi All. > > Does anyone know any good research reports or review articles that deal with the effectiveness of online education tools or initiatives? For instance, friend told me the The University of Illinois just invested $20 million in just trying to assess feasibility of its online education program. > > So what evidence is out there right now as to whether online education tools/ programs are effective or cost effective? > > Cheers- > > Heidi > > >--------------------------------- > All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. >_______________________________________________ >The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list >is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org >Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/ listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >Join the Association of Internet Researchers: >http://www.aoir.org/ ---------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Associate Professor Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820

2 1

Re: [Air-l] american internet penetration stats?
by Chadwick Andrew 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

Of course, but the original request was this: "What I am hoping for is a simple summary of what percentage of Americans used the internet in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, etc." The ITU figures are the most complete and reliable for that purpose. Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Frank Thomas > Sent: 11 September 2006 08:10 > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: Re: [Air-l] american internet penetration stats? > > Andy, > it depends on what Nancy looks for. The ITU provides the > provider view, the supply-side, the technology side. If Nancy > wants to have a look on usage, or the demand side, the value > of the ITU numbers is "somewhat" > limited. The number of telephone main lines or of hosts does > not predict social usage. > > Regards > F. Thomas > > Chadwick Andrew wrote: > > Hi Nancy, > > > > It's probably better to use the ITU data as the definitive source; > > they are the only official global repository. They rely on the > > national sources, but try to be consistent and rigorous in the way > > they clean the data. They have a complete set for the US > for every year back to 1995. > > Look for the latest Statistics Yearbook on their website - > a goldmine! > > > > Yours, > > > > Andy > > > > --------------------------------- > > Dr Andrew Chadwick, > > Senior Lecturer in Political Science, > > Head of Department, > > Department of Politics & International Relations, Royal Holloway > > College, University of London, http://www.rhul.ac.uk/politics-and-IR > > http://www.andrewchadwick.com > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > >> [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Nancy Baym > >> Sent: 08 September 2006 16:19 > >> To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > >> Subject: Re: [Air-l] american internet penetration stats? > >> > >> Also I do want to mention the Pew chart on American > internet adoption > >> at this page: > >> > >> http://www.pewinternet.org/trends.asp > >> > >> Nancy > >> _______________________________________________ > >> The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > >> Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change > >> options or unsubscribe at: > >> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >> > >> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > >> http://www.aoir.org/ > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > > Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change > > options or unsubscribe at: > > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > > http://www.aoir.org/ > > > > > > > > > -- > .......................................... > Dr. Frank Thomas > FTR Internet Research > 93110 Rosny-sous-Bois > France > > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ >

3 2

Re: [Air-l] american internet penetration stats?
by Chadwick Andrew 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

Hi there, I just had a look. Pasted from the "Information Technology" section of the list of variables: "INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The indicators in this category refer to computer equipment and networks. Personal computers The number of personal computers (i.e., designed to be operated by a single user at a time) in use in the country. Primarily ITU estimates based on a number of national and international sources. Internet subscribers The number of Internet subscribers including dial-up, leased and broadband. Cable modem Internet subscribers Internet subscribers using modems attached to cable television networks with speed greater than 128kbps in at least one direction. DSL Internet subscribers Internet subscribers using Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology with speed greater than 128kbps in at least one direction. Estimated Internet users The number of Internet users. % female Internet users Share of females in the total number of Internet users. This is calculated by dividing the number of female Internet users by the total number of Internet users. Female users as % of female population Share of female Internet users in the total number of females. This is calculated by dividing the number of female Internet users by the total number of females. International Internet Bandwidth (Mbps) Total capacity of international Internet bandwidth in Mega Bits Per Second (Mbps). If capacity is asymmetric (i.e., more outgoing than incoming or more incoming than outgoing), then outgoing capacity is used. Internet users per 100 inhabitants Calculated by dividing the number of Internet users by the population and multiplying by 100." Yours, Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Frank Thomas > Sent: 12 September 2006 08:02 > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: Re: [Air-l] american internet penetration stats? > > The ITU stats don't give percentage of users in a population, > if I remember well. > > Chadwick Andrew wrote: > > Of course, but the original request was this: "What I am > hoping for is > > a simple summary of what percentage of Americans used the > internet in > > 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, etc." > > > > The ITU figures are the most complete and reliable for that purpose. > > > > Andy > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > >> [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Frank Thomas > >> Sent: 11 September 2006 08:10 > >> To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > >> Subject: Re: [Air-l] american internet penetration stats? > >> > >> Andy, > >> it depends on what Nancy looks for. The ITU provides the provider > >> view, the supply-side, the technology side. If Nancy wants > to have a > >> look on usage, or the demand side, the value of the ITU > numbers is > >> "somewhat" > >> limited. The number of telephone main lines or of hosts does not > >> predict social usage. > >> > >> Regards > >> F. Thomas > >> > >> Chadwick Andrew wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Nancy, > >>> > >>> It's probably better to use the ITU data as the > definitive source; > >>> they are the only official global repository. They rely on the > >>> national sources, but try to be consistent and rigorous > in the way > >>> they clean the data. They have a complete set for the US > >>> > >> for every year back to 1995. > >> > >>> Look for the latest Statistics Yearbook on their website - > >>> > >> a goldmine! > >> > >>> Yours, > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> --------------------------------- > >>> Dr Andrew Chadwick, > >>> Senior Lecturer in Political Science, Head of Department, > Department > >>> of Politics & International Relations, Royal Holloway College, > >>> University of London, http://www.rhul.ac.uk/politics-and-IR > >>> http://www.andrewchadwick.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > >>>> [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Nancy Baym > >>>> Sent: 08 September 2006 16:19 > >>>> To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [Air-l] american internet penetration stats? > >>>> > >>>> Also I do want to mention the Pew chart on American > >>>> > >> internet adoption > >> > >>>> at this page: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.pewinternet.org/trends.asp > >>>> > >>>> Nancy > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > >>>> Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > >>>> > >> Subscribe, change > >> > >>>> options or unsubscribe at: > >>>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >>>> > >>>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > >>>> http://www.aoir.org/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > >>> Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > >>> > >> Subscribe, change > >> > >>> options or unsubscribe at: > >>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >>> > >>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > >>> http://www.aoir.org/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> .......................................... > >> Dr. Frank Thomas > >> FTR Internet Research > >> 93110 Rosny-sous-Bois > >> France > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > >> Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change > >> options or unsubscribe at: > >> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >> > >> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > >> http://www.aoir.org/ > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > > Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change > > options or unsubscribe at: > > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > > http://www.aoir.org/ > > > > > > > > > -- > .......................................... > Dr. Frank Thomas > FTR Internet Research > 93110 Rosny-sous-Bois > France > > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ >

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Open access publishing (was a modest proposal)
by Dr. W. Reid Cornwell 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

Provosts Endorse : An Open Letter to the higher education committee http://www.arl.org/info/frn/other/access/FRPAAletterFinal7-24-06.pdf ________________________________ Dr. W. Reid Cornwell The Center For Internet Research P.O. Box 6369 Breckenridge, CO 720.212.0719 (phone) 970.485.5109 (mobile) wrc(a)tcfir.org http://tcfir.org

5 8

Re: [Air-l] online education effectiveness
by R.Mabry-Hubbard (UMC Student) 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

Heidi, please define "effectiveness" relative to learning and online learning. Learners are not homogeneous; therefore, effective teaching strategies and learning environments depend on the material and learning outcome desired. Distance education has been around for over 100 years but the delivery medium has changed from postal only to a continuum of technologies including TV, video conferencing, and, of course the Internet. Online learning has many strengths both as stand-along delivery method and in conjunction with traditional face-to-face classes. It also has its weaknesses just as traditional lecture or seminar classes do. From a strictly "cost-benefit" perspective, the Internet increases access to higher education without the capital investment of "brick and mortar" classrooms and additional support staff. Online courses or supplemental online instruction also permits "mandatory" and equal participation by all class members since time is not a constraint. Online teaching, however, from the instructor's point of view requires much more time and effort -- something I can personally attest. I was also involved with two-semester study evaluating online instruction as a supplement to the traditional large lecture course (500+) and we found statistically significant improvement in "face-to-face" mid-terms exams scores for those who were active participants in online discussions and from previous semesters. This is as an older but fairly comprehensive report by the World Bank Organization called: Distance Education: Growth and Diversity (1998) http://www.worldbank.org/fandd/english/0398/articles/0110398.htm Perhaps the most important barometer of "learning outcome" effectiveness and cost is the continued adoption of online learning as a delivery method by businesses. For more resources, try a KEYWORD search: ("online learning" OR "e-learning") AND ("cost effectiveness") I hope this helps. R ------ Robin Y. Mabry Hubbard, MBA, EdS(Educational Technology) Rural Sociology Doctoral Student - Community Informatics Email: ryh352(a)mizzou.edu My Homepage: http://www.rrchubbard.org Murphy's Law: There is never enough time to do it right; but there is always time to do it over ~ Our Future arrived Yesterday! ~ [I am not inviting any postmodernist to my party!]

1 0

job announcements (2) - Dept of Communication, Cornell University
by Tarleton Gillespie 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

Cornell University Department of Communication Position: Tenure-eligible assistant professor, Communication, Human- Computer Interaction/Computer-Mediated Communication Starting Date: Fall Semester, 2007 Description: The Department of Communication at Cornell University is seeking a social science scholar to conduct research and to teach in the area of Human-Computer Interaction and/or Computer-Mediated Communication. We welcome scholars who study the human and social dimensions of information technology from psychological, sociological, or organizational vantage points. The successful candidate will have a Ph.D. in Communication or closely aligned field and have (or show promise of developing) a national/international reputation doing theory-based empirical research that will contribute to one or more of the Department’s core strengths in communication and technology, science, risk and environmental communication, media effects, and media and society. The successful candidate must be able to develop a research program connected to college and university priorities in information science, as well as applied social science, life science issues, environmental issues, and/or public outreach, and should have a high potential for attracting external research funding. Communication faculty teach two to three undergraduate and/or graduate courses per academic year, and advise students in the Department’s B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. programs. Salary: Cornell offers a highly competitive salary and benefits package. Support for start-up research costs will be available. Women and minorities are especially encouraged to apply. Application: plm29(a)cornell.eduApplication: Send letter of application addressing position qualifications and goals, vita, official academic transcripts, research article(s), and names and contact information of three references. Please also have each reference submit a letter of recommendation. All materials should be sent to Dr. Poppy L. McLeod, Department of Communication, 325 Kennedy Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. For additional information, e-mail Dr. McLeod (eduhttp://www.comm.cornell.edu) or telephone 607.254.8896. For more information about the Department of Communication, please visit our website: . Closing Date: Applications will be reviewed beginning October 16, 2006, until candidates are selected. Cornell University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action educator and employer. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cornell University Department of Communication Position: Tenure-eligible assistant professor, Communication, Media effects/Media studies Starting Date: Fall Semester, 2007 Description: The Department of Communication at Cornell University is seeking a social science scholar to conduct research and to teach in the area of media effects/media studies. We welcome scholars who study media from psychological, sociological, or institutional vantage points. The successful candidate will have a Ph.D. in Communication or closely aligned field and have (or show promise of developing) a national/international reputation doing theory-based empirical research that will contribute to one or more of the Department’s core strengths in science, risk and environmental communication, media effects, media and society, and communication and technology. The successful candidate must be able to develop a research program connected to college and university priorities in applied social science, information science, life science issues, environmental issues, and/or public outreach, and should have a high potential for attracting external research funding. Communication faculty teach two to three undergraduate and/or graduate courses per academic year, and advise students in the Department’s B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. programs. Salary: Cornell offers a highly competitive salary and benefits package. Support for start-up research costs will be available. Women and minorities are especially encouraged to apply. Application: Send letter of application addressing position qualifications and goals, vita, official academic transcripts, a research article, names and contact information of three references. Please also have each reference submit a letter of recommendation. All materials should be sent to Dr. Michael Shapiro, Department of Communication, 319 Kennedy Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. For additional information, e-mail Dr. Michael Shapiro (mas29(a)cornell.eduApplication: eduhttp://www.comm.cornell.edu) or telephone 607.255.6356. For more information about the Department of Communication, please visit our website: . Closing Date: Applications will be reviewed beginning October 16, 2006, until candidates are selected. Cornell University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action educator and employer.

1 0

Re: [Air-l] FW: list etiquette
by Charles Ess 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

Dr. Cornwall's response is in error in at least three ways: > I assert that Terri Senft has been allowed, without rapprochement, to use > vulgar epithets and she has done so on three different occasions. 1) To my knowledge, none of Terri Senft's comments have appeared on the aoir listerv. > > > I assert that Charles Ess as the result of a private communication, by > someone else, has labeled me unprofessional and unethical in the public > forum. 2) This is false. My communication was posted to the public forum only by you. My communication was to the pseudonmymous Rasputin, copied to the AoIR executive committee (a closed list) and Jeremy Hunsinger. 3) The AoIR guidelines for list etiquette state: > You should reply privately to private > email and not forward personal email to air-l without the author's > permission. My email to pseudonym R was private - you have now forwarded it to air-l without my permission. > > I don't have to prove any points I have made. They are a matter of the > archival record. These errors of fact and violation of etiquette guidelines are a matter of the archival record. They serve rather to undermine than to support at least these points - which in turn suggests that, in fact, assertions do require support. While intended privately to pseudonym R, I stand by my comments as now made public by you. Unfortunately, these errors of fact and violation of etiquette guidelines are consistent with my comments. - charles ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies <http://www.drury.edu/gp21> 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 Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee Co-chair, CATaC conferences <www.catacconference.org> Vice-President, Association of Internet Researchers <www.aoir.org> Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes <http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php> Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23

3 2

From Social Isolation in America to Facebook
by Barry Wellman 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

SPOILER WARNING: This posting will wind up with Networked Individualism. The meaning of friendship has been preoccupying me -- and others -- more than I would have expected. It started with the publication of McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Brashears' "Social Isolation in America" in Amer Soc Rev, June 2006. This evoked a media panic that friendship was dying, based on a shrinkage in the number of people "who discuss important matters" from nearly 3 in 1984 to slightly more than 2 in 2005. (And nearly a quarter of the American adult pop said they had no one.) I spent a lot of time with the media for the next month pointing out that research suggests that most very close ties are specialized, and that "discussing important matters" wasn't the only way that people are close. I noted that other surveys -- such as our Connected Lives study in Toronto and the Pew Internet "Strength of Internet Ties" study have found a mean of 10+ Very Close friends and relatives. (These numbers probably seem high to non-North Americans. German and French folk frequently tell me that they are astonished at how easily Americans call someone "friend" when they, by contrast, take 5 or so years to admit someone to their charmed cognitive friendship circle.) I also pointed folks to Peter Bearman (& coauthor's) 2005 Social Forces' article showing the variety of matters that people think are important to discuss. While most people have their own construct of what are important matters, they'd be mistaken to think that others share their zeitgeist. To me, it is "world peace" (just like Miss Congeniality), the state of the internet, and various family issues, but Bearman shows that to others it might be what kind of haircut or tatoo to get, plus the usual boy/girl friend issues. This leads me to the Facebook fiasco. First, as danah boyd says on her blog, a Facebook, MySpace, etc. "friend" often is different from what most of us otherwise would consider a "friend". Folks on the AOIR list reported mean numbers of greater than 100 Facebook "friends" in major American universities. By contrast, no survey has shown such high numbers, even though they have shown larger numbers than the 2 that McPherson found in analyzing the 2005 US General Social Survey. One problem with almost all social software is that it makes two false assumptions: (a) It assumes that relationships are dichotomous: Friend/Non-Friend. (b) It assumes that friends all belong to the same group. In reality, friendships not only are specialized in content, but vary in intensity. It's rare that someone would want to share everything with almost any "friend". Our data also show the obvious: it's rare that all Very Close friends (and relatives) live in the same densely-knit group. The news that we want to share with friends in one cluster of relationships may not be something we would want to share with those in other clusters. In short, we live in a world of "networked individualism" in which we're forever navigating through complex social networks -- assessing who and when to tell what. Facebook got both of these wrong (in addition to foolishly not consulting): It propogated all changes to all Facebook Friends. Gosh, we could have saved them a bunch of money and reputation. Barry _____________________________________________________________________ Barry Wellman Professor of Sociology NetLab Director wellman at 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 You're invited to visit & contribute to the new version of "Updating Cybertimes: It's Time to Bring Our Culture into Cyberspace" http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php _____________________________________________________________________

8 7

Re: [Air-l] american internet penetration stats?
by Chadwick Andrew 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

Hi Nancy, It's probably better to use the ITU data as the definitive source; they are the only official global repository. They rely on the national sources, but try to be consistent and rigorous in the way they clean the data. They have a complete set for the US for every year back to 1995. Look for the latest Statistics Yearbook on their website - a goldmine! Yours, Andy --------------------------------- Dr Andrew Chadwick, Senior Lecturer in Political Science, Head of Department, Department of Politics & International Relations, Royal Holloway College, University of London, http://www.rhul.ac.uk/politics-and-IR http://www.andrewchadwick.com > -----Original Message----- > From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Nancy Baym > Sent: 08 September 2006 16:19 > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: Re: [Air-l] american internet penetration stats? > > Also I do want to mention the Pew chart on American internet > adoption at this page: > > http://www.pewinternet.org/trends.asp > > Nancy > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ >

4 4

Ready for registration to DOCAM 06, Oct. 13-15
by Niels Windfeld Lund 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

Hello everybody It is now time for register for the 4th. Document Research conference at UC Berkeley Information School, next month, October 13-15 organized by The Document Academy, an international collaborative initiative for document research. The conference is growing slowly at a calm pace, keeping it a relatively small conference with only plenary sessions and time for discussion and meeting people. In the program you will find DOCAM regulars as well as new contributors from many different disciplines and parts of the world, hopefully ensuring an open-ended discussion with benefits for all participants. You will find program, online registration form and recommendations for accommodation on this link: http://thedocumentacademy.hum.uit.no/events/docam/index.html Abstracts will be uploaded soon. Online proceedings are planned to be published after the conference. Finally we are delighted to announce that the key-note speaker this year will be Professor Geoffrey C. Bowker, Executive Director for the Center for Science, Technology and Society, Santa Clara University. Professor Bowker will give his Keynote Address at the end of the conference and comment on the core questions and challenges for document research in the future. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to send me an email. Please feel free to forward it to people, you think would be interested. Welcome at DOCAM 06 Niels Windfeld Lund chair of The Document Academy

1 0