Han wrote:
But please understand that they are undergraduate kids and this is a valuable learning process.
As others have implied, the Korean students have us considering [as social scientist], the entire issue of boundaries. I think as future researchers, the students will probably learn a lot from this experience about formal, informal, and especially invisible boundaries of all social groups whether they are in Geospace or cyberspace. I hope their experiences will provoke class discussion about boundaries and how to avoid violating unknown cultural boundaries by first listening and observing (lurking) to understand the group's norms (etiquette) for welcoming and introducing potential new participants. IMHO, we as social scientist also have something to learn. We made assumptions based on the "face" of the message which led to imposing sanctions against the perceived "deviants" by filtering them out as spam. Aren't these the type of dynamics we are trying to understand about the Internet as a social world? The group's immediate reaction reminds me of the early and mid 1990's when AOL "newbies" were so vilified for not understanding netiquette. In the end, the newbies won by sheer numbers so there is no consensus on how to insert yourself into the existing conversation -- especially if you want to "change" or introduce a new topic to the existing participants. IMHO, this is a "teaching moment" for both the students and for ourselves as researchers. The group is for "internet researchers" but some of us apparently have very specific definition of what "internet research" posts are valid questions? What are the group's boundaries for topic discussions (rhetorical question only)? My two cents. Deana wrote:
.. that's the same reason why I quit using this kind of assignment. My students never really read the messages on the lists that I had them subscribe to.
As for pedagogy, I would like to try this assignment. However, I would have my students lurk first and write a profile of the group they have selected to join. The profile would include some statements about the group's norms (netiquette) and identifying a strategy for "joining the conversation" and posting their research. I would also have them include a discussion of what would happen if they violated the group norms so their message is considered spam or "flame bait." This profile would be the pre-assignment before they are allowed to post. Then, of course, I would have them write a short "ethnographic" description of what happened when they joined the lists and posted. They actually become participant-observers doing field work. Because, I want them to be familiar with the IRB (legal ethics requirements for Americans researchers), I would like them to include some discussion of the ethics issue as a participant-observer researcher. Robin ------ Robin Y. Mabry Hubbard, MBA, EdS Rural Sociology Doctoral Student - Community Informatics Email: ryh352@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!]