- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: [Air-L] Reputation and professional degrees
by Marj Kibby 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

In an era where everyone has a still/video camera, a voice recorder and a notebook with them at all times, more amateurs are collecting the data that once was the sole province of professional researchers. Just from Flickr, everyday photographers are helping out on Humpback Fluke cataloging, researching Waterbirds Diet and recording Caspian Tern movements. Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby(a)newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604 >>> Liz <nwjerseyliz(a)yahoo.com> 06/01/10 6:56 AM >>> <snip> In The Long Tail, Chris Anderson discusses the cooperation & respect professional & amateur astronomers have for each others abilities and how they've come together to work on some research projects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's more likely that this pro-am collegiality could occur in technology & media studies than in the social sciences. Liz Pullen nwjerseyliz(a)yahoo.com _______________________________________________

1 0

Reputation and professional degrees
by Chris Hodge 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

I believe that the anthropologist Richard Leakey, who is currently a Professor at SUNY Stonybrook, had no formal college education http://www.roycecarlton.com/speaker/Richard-Leakey-Curriculum-Vitae/ although he's received many honorary doctorates. I don't think anyone would question his bona fides, just as I am sure most of us envy his education. Also, when I studied history at Columbia back in the 1970s, I was a little surprised to learn that one of my professors, Alan Cameron, did not have a PhD either. Cameron is currently Charles Anthon Professor of the Latin Language and Literature at Columbia University. Generally a PhD reflects a certain degree of expertise -- although, like friends on FB, we should probably be careful not to read too much into that -- but mostly it reflects a commitment to the academic system and its processes. Where this gets muddier it seems to me is in areas such as emerging technologies, where an 18 year old dropout might have a greater grasp of a subject that a 60 year old tenured faculty member. Professionalization seems to be weakening across disciplines, and trying to emerge is a more dynamic, more disperse, more ambient reputation system. We aren't surprised any more to find out the "person" we're talking with on the Internet is a dog, but we are still shocked when the dog turns out to be smarter than we are. -c On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Sam Ladner <samladner(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Of course this begs the question: what is the <redacted> text? I must know! > Your inquiry I think is one of professionalization. Academics in general > haven't been as successful at that process than, say, physicians (any of you > been called "not a 'real' doctor'"? Extra points if it was by family > member!). Physicians monopolized a set of knowledge and successfully > organized the socio-legal framework to their benefit. They have placed other > professionals below them in a hierarchy (nurses, physiotherapists, etc.) and > locked down that social convention by having exclusive legal control over > prescriptions. > Anthropologists have failed to do the same (as have sociologists, FWIW). The > only occupational control anthropologists have had thus far is guarding > entry into the academy as a professor. You can call yourself an > anthropologist as much as you want, but you just can't teach other > anthropologists. Heck, I've met several "economists" who "only" have an MA. > Now that said, I happen to think the PhD matters (under 25? irrelevant). It > suggests a certain level of expertise, and of course the ability to teach > that expertise. > But it makes me uncomfortable to relegate someone to "non anthropologist" > when there is no legal provision to certify that professional status, as > there are with engineers, physicians, and accountants. > ~~~~~ > Sam Ladner, PhD > Sociologist > Toronto > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:21 PM, live <human.factor.one(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I actually have an inquiry that is related, and I'm highly curious what >> the list response is: >> >> I've someone I know who is calling themselves a '<redacted term> >> anthropologist'. >> As such, they have been invited to speak and have been presenting at >> various conferences. >> They do not have a PhD and they're under the age of 25, having just >> graduated from college. >> >> Is this ethical? Can a term 'psychologist' or anthropologist' be used by >> someone not having attended graduate education? >> What say this list? >> >> >> On Jan 4, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Chris Hodge wrote: >> >>> I can understand people misrepresenting the nature of their personal >>> contacts for self-aggrandizement (FB body counts), and I can >>> understand people misrepresenting associations and affiliations for >>> professional gain (fictitious advisory boards). As sins go, I guess >>> I'm not sure this is much worse than resume-padding. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > > > > -- > >

5 5

Re: [Air-L] Reputation and professional degrees
by Matthew Bernius 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

Liz <nwjerseyliz(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > But when I first started following people on Twitter, I did a bio search > for those who describe themselves as an anthropologist or sociologist and > was surprised how much these titles had been appropriated by people who, as > part of their job in marketing or media, try to make sense of why people act > as they do. "Technology anthropologist" is one title I've seen several times > by people working in social media. > Ingbert Floyd <ifloyd2(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It seems to me that the values of the academic anthropologists, whether or > not they have a degree, and the values of the people who are employed by > corporations, are at times radically different, and that is the source of > the tension, especially because the people on the corporate side who use the > label often make little effort to understand the academic use of the label. > Speaking as an anthropologist (or at least one in the midst of professionalization), what Ingbert writes is completely correct. It should be noted that this goes far beyond simply what is meant by "ethnography." What tends to tick anthropologists off is the reduction of anthropology to ethnography. <rant> In fact, what makes these self-glossed anthropologists often a bit problematic is their habit of reproducing (and dare I say fetishizing) the very ideas and tropes that anthropologists have spent the last few decades trying to move beyond. The danger of any self appointed "professional" is that while they have the "tools" (for example "ethnography", a form of study to which Anthropology cannot and should not claim exclusivity), these individuals often miss the context -- not just of the tools, but of the field itself. For the non-professional anthropologist that usually means using terms like "native" and (implied, if not specific) references to Malinowski and Mead. Apologies for the rant. Anthropology tends to be one of the more abused professions when it comes to people self glossing in the technical sphere. </rant> Ingbert, I'm really glad you singled out Dourish as a good example of how people can appropriate tools like ethnography in a nuanced and very open way. I'm a really big fan of his work. - Matt ----------------------------- Matthew Bernius PhD Student, Cultural Anthropology, Cornell University ( http://www.arts.cornell.edu/anthro/) Researcher At Large, Open Publishing Lab @ the Rochester Institute of Technology (http://opl.cias.rit.edu) mBernius(a)gMail.com http://www.waking-dream.com

1 0

Roger Silverstone: A symposium
by Kathleen O'Riordan 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

The School of Media, Film and Music at Sussex is organizing an event around the work of Roger Silverstone. See details below: The Work of Roger Silverstone A symposium to mark the naming of the Silverstone Building at Sussex and to honour a former colleague, an international scholar, and an excellent teacher. Date: January 20th, 2010 Time: 12:30 - 18:00 (Followed by a Reception) Location: University of Sussex, Silverstone Building (Room 309) Speakers include: Professor Nick Couldry (Goldsmiths), Leslie Haddon (LSE), Andy Medhurst (Sussex), Professor Robin Mansell (LSE), Professor Marie Gillespie (OU), Professor Lilie Chouliaraki (LSE), Dr. Maren Hartmann (Berlin University of the Arts), Dr. Matt Hills (Cardiff), Dr. Myria Georgiou (LSE), Irmi Karl (Brighton), Dr. Kate Lacey (Sussex). All Welcome. The event is free but please RSVP to Sarah Maddox as soon as possible to reserve a place. (s.maddox(a)sussex.ac.uk) ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- Dr Kate O'Riordan Department of Media and Film University of Sussex Falmer Brighton BN1 9RG TEL 01273 876730 FAX 01273 877219 http://www.sussex.ac.uk/mediastudies/profile30746.html

1 0

Sociology @ Essex: ESRC '1+3' Research Studentships in Sociology (2 awards) and Applied Social and Economic Research (4 awards)
by Anderson, Ben 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

Hi, These could be used to pursue just about any interest in technology/internet & society. Please note deadline for application of 1/3/2010. The contact given below (Michele Hall) can clarify the UK/EU eligibility criteria. We are likely to receive a large number of applications across a wide range of sociological subject areas so move fast with a strong application :-) regards Ben > Dear All, this ad is now live: > > http://www.postgraduatestudentships.co.uk/node/13814 > > ------------> > > The Department of Sociology at University of Essex is a research-led department with a strong commitment to empirical research. TheInstitute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) specialises in the production and analysis of longitudinal data and is a major ESRC research centre. Sociology at Essex received the top ranking in the 2008 RAE, while the University of Essex as a whole is ranked 9th in the country for research. > > ESRC 1+3 studentships are available for two programmes, both commencing in October 2010. > > Sociological Research (2 awards available) > This programme consists of a 1-year MA in Sociological Research followed by a 3-year PhD in any area of sociology. More details - http://www.essex.ac.uk/sociology/prospective/pg_programmes/ma_socres.aspx > > Longitudinal Social Research (4 awards available) > This programme is a joint degree scheme offered by the Sociology Department and ISER. Students take a one-year MA in Longitudinal Social Research and a 3-year PhD in Applied Economic and Social Research, which can be in any area of sociology or another empirical social science discipline. More details - http://www.essex.ac.uk/Sociology/prospective/PG_Programmes/ma_longitudinal.… > > Funding and Eligibility > We are seeking strong candidates with a first class, or upper second class honours degree, or a Masters degree with an average mark of at least 65. > > Awards are available to applicants who meet EU/UK residential criteria. > > The studentships cover the UK/EU fees plus a living stipend and a further £750 training grant, p.a. for the duration of the award. The stipend will meet the National Minimum Doctoral Stipend level set by the UK Research Councils (for 2009/10, the full-time stipend level was £13,290 p.a). An additional living stipend of approximately 3,000 p.a. is available for students undertaking advanced quantitative training. > > To be considered for any of these awards you must first apply to the department for a place. Your application must reach us no later than 1st March, 2010. For details of how to apply contact Michele Hall (mehall(a)essex.ac.uk) > > ---- Dr Ben Anderson Sociology @ Essex www.essex.ac.uk/sociology/staff/profile.aspx?ID=118 Centre for Research on Economic Sociology and Innovation cresi.essex.ac.uk/getperson?personID=1

1 0

Open call for psicologia culturale
by Luca Tateo 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

Dear friends, please find attached the open call of the journal "Psicologia Culturale". You are kindly requested to disseminate it in your professional network. best regards and happy new year Call for paper Journal Psicologia Culturale. Contesti, sistemi di regole, attività. Cultural Psychology. Contexts, systems of rules, activity. Psicologia Culturale means to emphasize the roots of the “cultural paradigm”, that are largely originated in philosophic, historic and psychological Italian tradition of scholars like Giambattista Vico, Cattaneo and Gramsci. Psicologia Culturale also aims at disseminating the cultural reflection, namely within Italian psychology, as well as being an intellectual laboratory and a meeting place between research and theoretical experiences. Besides, taking into account the manifold contexts the “cultural perspective” deals with, the journal Psicologia Culturale means to provide a scientific reference to its heuristic potentialities. The journal will adopt a strong innovative approach and an interdisciplinary perspective, according to the scientific assumptions and the long research tradition of cultural psychology. The Scientific Committee, involving a number of Italian and International scholars working in this domain, will ensure the high scientific quality of the publications and the vivacity of the intellectual debate. The journal will publish mainly in Italian language, but contributions in English, French, Spanish and Portuguese will also be accepted. Main topics In the spirit of maximum intellectual openness, and coherently with the themes of the cultural approach, this journal will publish contributions about theories, methods and practices related to the cultural psychology. These are some domains whose papers are most welcome: education; workplace and organizational studies; long-life learning; interaction with the technology in working and learning contexts; psycho-dynamic and community psychology; legal psychology; identity and related constructs; theoretical and historical development of cultural psychology; relationships with other psychological, philosophical, sociological and anthropological approaches; studies in multiple cultural contexts; cognitive and reasoning processes; affect, social, cognitive assessments in cultural contexts. Types of contributions The journal is published (2 issues per year, June and December) by Edizioni Firera (www.firera.com) The journal accepts the following types of contributions: theoretical papers: this type of contribution focuses on theoretical, methodological and historical aspects of cultural psychology (maximum length 70.000 characters with spaces); research papers: this type of contribution focuses on qualitative or quantitative empirical works (including a theoretical frame, method and results) which are a relevant contribution for the advancement of psychological knowledge (maximum length 70.000 characters with spaces); target-papers: this type of contribution can focus on theoretical or empirical controversial issues of the cultural psychology paradigm. The paper will be critically reviewed by two or more scholars, also proposed by the author, whose contributions will be published on the same issue of the journal (maximum length 50.000 characters with spaces); short research reports: this type of contribution presents innovative on-going research experiences (maximum length 15.000 characters with spaces); state-of-the-art, books and scientific events reviews: this type of papers presents reviews about the state-of-the-art in specific research areas (maximum length 25.000 characters with spaces), reviews of scientific books or scientific events. The author will provide a short and exhaustive report of the text or event reviewed (maximum length 15.000 characters with spaces). special issues: the journal accepts proposal for special issues. Proposals' author(s) are responsible for collecting contributions (max 5 articles) and for managing the review and editing process. The special issue's proposal will be first submitted to the Scientific Committee for approval. Submission guidelines All submission will be peer reviewed. The submission must fulfil the maximum length requirements above mentioned and the APA style norms. Submissions must be sent in digital version both to the journal address psicologia(a)unisa.it and to the publisher address psicologiaculturale(a)fireraliuzzo.com. The submission's file in “.doc” or “.rtf” format must use the following naming convention <first author surname>_<title keyword>_<date> (e.g., “cultural psychology in america” by mario rossi sent the 1st January 2009 must be named rossi_america_010109.doc). The file content must be organized as follows: 1.title-page including: title, author(s), affiliation, full address, e-mail, abstract in English (max 1200 characters with spaces), min. 3 max. 6 keywords; 2.text and references - Text without any reference to the author(s) that should be substituted with XXXXXX. Otherwise, author(s) can opt for a non-blind peer review process. 3.figures and images must be included in a new page at the end of the paper with the captions within the text. 4.author(s) declaration stating that the publication (also electronic) rights and translation rights are transferred to Firera Publisher. Please format the article as follows: A4 text page (margins: upper cm 5; lower cm 6,2; left cm 4,6; right cm 4,6). Main title: Times New Roman 12 Bold left alignment; Paragraphs: Times New Roman 11 Bold left alignment; Sub-paragraphs: Times New Roman 11 Italic left alignment; Text: Times New Roman 11 justified alignment; Editor Antonio Iannaccone (University of Salerno) Co-editor Andrea Smorti (University of Florence) Scientific Committee Luigi Anolli (University of Milano-Bicocca) Anna Maria Aiello (University of Rome “Sapienza”) Pietro Boscolo (University of Padova) Michel Brossard (University of Bordeaux) Jerome Bruner (New York School of Law) Renzo Carli (University of Rome “Sapienza”) Felice Carugati (University of Bologna) Margarida César (University of Lisbon) Michael Cole (University of California, San Diego) Francesco Paolo Colucci (University of Milano-Bicocca) Willem Corsaro (Indiana University) Angela Maria Di Vita (University of Palermo) Yrio Engstrom (Helsinki University) Michèle Grossen (University of Lausanne, Svizzera) Beatrice Ligorio (University of Bari) Giuseppe Mantovani (University of Padua) Bruno Mazzara (University of Rome “Sapienza”) Nathalie Muller MIRZA (University of Neuchâtel) Clotilde Pontecorvo (University of Rome “Sapienza”) Alberto Rosa (University of Madrid) Vitaly V. Rubstov (Moscow State University of Psychology and Pedagogics and Psychological Institute Russian Academy of Education) Sergio Salvatore (University of Salento) Jaan Valsiner (Clark University) Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont (University of Neuchâtel, CH) Roger Säliö (Linköping University) Andrea Smorti (University of Florence) Bertrand Troadec (University of Toulouse “Le Mirail”) Maria Serena Veggetti (University of Rome “Sapienza”) Editorial staff Pina Marsico (University of Salerno) Claudio Longobardi (University of Turin) Luca Tateo (University of Sassari) Ruggero Ruggieri (University of Salerno) website: http://www.unisa.it/Dipartimenti/DISCED/Personale/Iannaccone_Antonio/psicol… -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Luca Tateo, PhD Dept. of Economy, Institutions and Society, University of Sassari (Italy) home address: via Rufoli, 23 Ogliara I-84135 Salerno mobile +39.392.5178418, +39.347.5423594 office +39.089.962653 fax +39.089.962106 ltateo(a)unisa.it, network.salerno(a)tiscali.it Skype ID: luca.tateo lucatateo.blog.tiscali.it ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Reputation and friending
by Ted Coopman 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

All, Forgot to hit "reply all" (risking setting off another debate - I hate having to that). Happy new year. I have been bombarded with people I allegedly went to High School with and without whom I have led a fairly happy life since. This has led me to think about the oppressive qualities of social media. This puts the receiver of the friend request - much like an in-person direct request for friendship, which would be weird (IMO) - in an awkward position. "Ah, yeah, can I get back to you on that...?" Such a request f2f2 would be, I think, odd and slightly pathetic, but is ok online. Maybe it is just semantics. I have discussed this with my students and many report the same feeling. They have also mentioned the aggressive quality of the text and that some friends get upset if there is not an immediate reply or offended if they are somehow left out of a group text. The level of "friendly" surveillance is almost stalkerish (if freinding is a word, then stalkerish can be a word!). This is not directly my area, but is anyone doing any research on this? -TED On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Alexander Halavais <halavais(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This may seem at odds with a URL posted earlier, but with the greatest > respect (and sympathy) for those who have already entered into this > thread, I humbly suggest that discussing any person's character on > AIR-L is: > > 1. Inappropriate. AIR-L is intended to further research and while it > frequently becomes a more friendly community, none of us would want > our personal character adjudicated in such a public setting. So, to > second Peter's comment, I think we should quit it. > > 2. Ineffective. Really, the question of whether to befriend someone or > "friend" someone is more effectively handled by talking to people you > trust and, for people who write in public, reading what they have > said. Why would you trust 2,000 relative strangers' opinions on > another stranger? If we want to talk about something a person has > written, an argument they have made, or even a project they have > undertaken, that's another kettle of fish, and this would be a great > topic. > > 3. Boring. I don't really care, particularly, about the reputation of > a single person. I know some do--that's why TMZ rakes in the bucks. I > encourage someone to start a Reid Cornwell fan page on Facebook, or an > "anti-fan" page if they prefer. I just don't think it is why people > come to AIR-L. > > So, since the above is very much "do as I say, not as I do," I > recommend the following tangents, which actually take those issues on > without ever having to talk about any single person: > > 1. Has the nature of reputation changed? Do we now make friends in a > different way? Most of the people I consider friends IRL I met either > because I was introduced to them by people I trusted, or because we > were forced to work together on something (school, work, sporting > team, chain gang, same diff.). But now, I feel Helen's pain: If you > are a friend of Henry's shouldn't you also be my friend? > > 2. Is whuffie a reasonable construct? Do we all, like public > officials, now have "approval ratings"? Did we always, and now it is > more explicit? > > 3. How, when anyone online can be a dog, do we determine if someone is > a "mensch"? I know that many of you on this list have "alts," and nom > de plumes (d'ordinateurs?). If you are like me, you are concerned that > they keep their "good name," even if they happen to be fake. How do we > determine if a person or an organization is "legitimate"? If it > "matters"? When does the social construct of a public persona or > organization become "real"? Where is the border between astroturf and > grass roots--or is there any? (Obviously, this is a question Wikipedia > struggles with.) > > Discuss. > > </threadjack> > > > > > > -- > -- > // > // This email is > // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. > // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. > // > // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur > // http://alex.halavais.net > // > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > -- Ted M. Coopman Ph.D. Lecturer Department of Communication Studies Department of Television, Radio, Film, & Theatre San Jose State University

2 1

CFP 2010 Summer Research Institute for the Science of Socio-Technical Systems (USA)
by Wayne Lutters 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

Call for Participation: 2010 Summer Research Institute for the Science of Socio-Technical Systems: 13-17 June, 2009 Skamania Lodge, Stevenson, WA (www.skamania.com) We are seeking 30 scholars to join the outstanding set of mentors for this year's Summer Research Institute If you are an advanced doctoral student, post-doctoral scholar or pre-tenure faculty at a US-based institution, you are eligible to participate. Application screening begins 1 March, 2010 with notification by early April, 2010. Application requirements can be found below. Most costs will be covered for accepted participants. Background --------------- A multi-disciplinary science of socio-technical systems is emerging from research in the fields of CSCW, social computing, social informatics, the sociology of computing, HCI, organizational studies, ICT for development, medical informatics, information systems, library and information science, and other related intellectual communities. To support this, the Consortium for the Science of Socio-Technical Systems (CSST, see http://sociotech.net) was established in 2007 as an organization devoted to advocating for this intellectual movement. Building on the successes of the 2008 and 2009 Summer Research Institutes, the CSST will, with generous support by the National Science Foundation, again be organizing a summer research institute for advanced doctoral students and pre-tenure faculty to be held 13-17 June, 2010. A primary goal of the institute is to build a trans-disciplinary cohort of scholars who examine the complex interplay among the technical and the social across all levels of analysis: individuals, groups, organizations, cultures, and society. Examples of this kind of work include research on: * new forms of organizing (e.g., virtual organizations, massive online activities) * social computing (e.g., online communities, online social networks); * distributed work (e.g., collaboratories, virtual teams); * emerging technologies (e.g., recommender systems, prediction markets); * novel forms of production (e.g., open source software, Wikipedia); * new forms of expression and entertainment (e.g., blogs, wikis, massively multiplayer online games); and * information and communication technologies for developing regions (e.g., cell phone-based applications to assist economic development, infrastructure development for local economic action). 2010 Institute Mentors ------------------------- Steve Sawyer, Syracuse University, Director Wayne Lutters, University of Maryland, Baltimore County Geoff Bowker, University of Pittsburgh Brian Butler, University of Pittsburgh Christine Halverson, IBM Corporation C. Suzanne Iacono, National Science Foundation David McDonald, National Science Foundation Christine Neuwirth, Carnegie Mellon University Gary Olson, University of California, Irvine Judith Olson, University of California, Irvine Tony Salvador, Intel Corporation Susan Leigh Starr, University of Pittsburgh Michael Twidale, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Institute goals ----------------- The goals of the institute are to: * Expand on and strengthen connections among researchers in this area, linking across intellectual communities and further building upon the network of relations formed through the 2008 and 2009 Summer Research Institutes. * Guide the work of the new researchers by interacting with experts in the sciences of socio-technical systems. * Provide encouragement and support for the selection of socio-technical systems research topics. * Illustrate both the connection among and diversity of the fields that contribute to socio-technical systems research. How the institute will be conducted ------------------------------------------- The institute will be conducted as a residential program at Skamania Lodge (www.skamania.com) with a combination of small group sessions devoted to providing feedback on participants' research and larger group sessions consisting of panels and presentations led by the institute mentors. These sessions will cover research topics such as core principles and viable methods and also career development, how to obtain funding, and publication strategies. Time will be reserved for informal recreational activities. Costs of participation, including travel, food and accommodations, are covered thanks to the funding provided by the NSF. How to apply ---------------- The application process requires two parts: 1. A 350 word response to the question: "How will your research contribute to advancing our scientific understanding of socio-technical systems?" In responding to this question, please also explain what you mean by socio-technical. You may also want to include a core or defining reference that guides your work in this area. 2. A current curriculum vitae. Please email your application materials as attachments (in PDF or in a common word processing format) to csst2010(a)syr.edu with the email subject line being "CSST 2010 Application" If you have questions, contact Steve Sawyer or Wayne Lutters directly.

1 0

Re: [Air-L] New Study: Learning in the Wild of a Virtual World
by scott＠scottmacleod.com 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Congratulations, Suzanne! I added a reference to http://www.webnographers.org/index.php?title=Papers#Second_Life [1] Happy New Year! Scott http://scottmacleod.com [2] http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/World_University [3] On Mon 04/01/10 4:44 PM , Suzanne Aurilio pict(a)rohan.sdsu.edu sent: Happy 2010 everyone, I wanted to share the findings of my recently completed study, a dissertation in education titled ³Learning in the Wild of a Virtual World.² PDFs of the entire project are here http://tinyurl.com/yjojsu3, the abstract is below. Please forgive cross-posting. Best, Suzanne Aurilio PS. I just realized I pdf-ed unsigned title pages, they have indeed been signed ;). Learning in the Wild of a Virtual World Abstract This study took place in the online 3D virtual world Second Life®, a recreational environment designed for world-building and socializing, and intended for individuals 18 years old and older. It described learning from the perspective of Second Life® Residents and focused on their world-building activities. As a virtual ethnographer, my avatar interacted with seven main participant-avatars in-world. Real life ages ranged from 33 years old to mid 50s; all but one were women. I collected data from 20 other Residents also. The study contributes to a nascent body of educational research exploring new forms of inquiry and practice conceived in virtual worlds, and breaks new ground by positioning itself in terms of a constructionist-learning context in which adults actively engage. The findings reiterate previous research of learning in virtual worlds. It is situated, social, intrinsically engaging and requires a high degree of personal agency. Learning in Second Life®, however, typifies constructionist principles, and qualities of adult learning which, in practice, are relevant to children as learners too. The context-specific activities of world-building invoke in learners a capacity to be self-directed problem-solvers of concrete and personally meaningful tasks. These activities result in novel expressive forms, and performative expressions of self through one¹s avatar. World-building engenders artists¹ and artisans¹ habits of mind in the forms of learning-by-doing and trial and error. Compared with the larger population, Second Life® Residents are trailblazers. I therefore proposed cyborg learners/learning as a formulation for characterizing the expressive forms and ways of learning documented here. * Learners embody avatars in a 3D graphical space. * They are geographically dispersed. * They occupy at least two or more social and technological locations simultaneously. * Learning is technologically and socially platform-specific. * It is socially interdependent. * It depends on intrinsically motivating activities. * It engenders forms of learning-by-doing. These findings contribute to a broad research paradigm addressing games for learning, mobile learning, open learning, personal learning environments (PLEs) and multi-user learning environments (MUVEs). ~~ Suzanne Aurilio, PhD Assistant Director pICT - People, Information and Communication Technologies San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92182-1623 619-594-2953 Office AD220C pict.sdsu.edu sdsu-aztlan.wikispaces.com SL Aurili Oh Twitter saurili Delicious saurilio _______________________________________________ The 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/ Links: ------ [1] http://www.webnographers.org/index.php?title=Papers#Second_Life [2] http://scottmacleod.com [3] http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/World_University

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Reputation and friending (was Reid Cornwell)
by Poletti, Anna 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

This seems as good a time as any to de-lurk on this list; hello everyone. I wanted to take up Alexander's first question with an observation from the perspective of literary studies. In regards to facebook, I increasingly see parallels with the social world depicted by Jane Austen in a conversation like the one that has unfolded on the list; being the friend of a reputable / desirable person (such as Henry Jenkins) confers respectability on another, the 'critical mass' of social connections makes a subject like Cornwell the topic of conversation (dare I say gossip?) within a particular world. (I do take Alexander's point that the blurring of the professional and the social in the discussion of Cornwell raises interesting ethical questions. Austen shows, however, that the temptation of such discussion is great, because the power such connections and associations wield is significant (or appear to wield?). This is not to dismiss the ethical questions raised by Alexander and others, but merely to suggest how the discussion of a person's character can be read as symptomatic of the seriousness and meaning that gets attached to the issue.) Austen's comic talents come to the fore in extrapolating the problems and dilemmas that can arise from being led by the social network and its methods of constructing and conferring respectability, and identity. And so I want to answer Alexander's question by suggesting that not much has changed. Drawing a parallel with Austen is useful as she can offer some finely-grained ways of thinking about the function of social networking and its impact on how we develop identities in tightly networked environments (and yes, I guess I am suggesting that the version of the internet many of us experience has things in common with an English village and the middle class social world). Social and professional mores suggest I should avoid a gratuitous plug for the book I'm co-editing on online identity, but a case study on trolling would be a welcome addition. Anna Dr Anna Poletti Lecturer in English School of Humanities & Social Sciences Charles Sturt University Locked Bag 678 Wagga Wagga NSW 2678 e: apoletti(a)csu.edu.au ph: + 61 2 6933 2478 fax: +61 2 6933 2792 --------- Message: 9 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:37:48 -0500 From: Alexander Halavais <halavais(a)gmail.com> To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] Reputation and friending (was Reid Cornwell) Message-ID: <e0fe0c741001041137k35373dbfqfc69e86af1f7f417(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This may seem at odds with a URL posted earlier, but with the greatest respect (and sympathy) for those who have already entered into this thread, I humbly suggest that discussing any person's character on AIR-L is: 1. Inappropriate. AIR-L is intended to further research and while it frequently becomes a more friendly community, none of us would want our personal character adjudicated in such a public setting. So, to second Peter's comment, I think we should quit it. 2. Ineffective. Really, the question of whether to befriend someone or "friend" someone is more effectively handled by talking to people you trust and, for people who write in public, reading what they have said. Why would you trust 2,000 relative strangers' opinions on another stranger? If we want to talk about something a person has written, an argument they have made, or even a project they have undertaken, that's another kettle of fish, and this would be a great topic. 3. Boring. I don't really care, particularly, about the reputation of a single person. I know some do--that's why TMZ rakes in the bucks. I encourage someone to start a Reid Cornwell fan page on Facebook, or an "anti-fan" page if they prefer. I just don't think it is why people come to AIR-L. So, since the above is very much "do as I say, not as I do," I recommend the following tangents, which actually take those issues on without ever having to talk about any single person: 1. Has the nature of reputation changed? Do we now make friends in a different way? Most of the people I consider friends IRL I met either because I was introduced to them by people I trusted, or because we were forced to work together on something (school, work, sporting team, chain gang, same diff.). But now, I feel Helen's pain: If you are a friend of Henry's shouldn't you also be my friend? 2. Is whuffie a reasonable construct? Do we all, like public officials, now have "approval ratings"? Did we always, and now it is more explicit? 3. How, when anyone online can be a dog, do we determine if someone is a "mensch"? I know that many of you on this list have "alts," and nom de plumes (d'ordinateurs?). If you are like me, you are concerned that they keep their "good name," even if they happen to be fake. How do we determine if a person or an organization is "legitimate"? If it "matters"? When does the social construct of a public persona or organization become "real"? Where is the border between astroturf and grass roots--or is there any? (Obviously, this is a question Wikipedia struggles with.) Discuss. </threadjack> -- -- // // This email is // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberfl?neur // http://alex.halavais.net //

1 0