Umm, i don't mean to be harsh, but your study was biased before you started. you have an opt in study, which is biased you asked for people who self identify, which is biased your frame was skewed before you started, i don't see how it can be unbiased you have nothing to compare it to that can be similar, which will not allow you to remove bias. I'm not sure what you are really attempting to do other than to appear scientific and i find that problematic. thus, from my reading of the statement below, the only effect this statement below then seems to have is to quash or silence discussion by labeling things as. don't you see a problem with that? the only jargon that i've seen in this so far is the general process bit. the rest of the observations where equivalent to expert testimony from people in their respective fields, using common language, but by labeling it as possibly unmeritorious, and jargon- laden, you are at best dismissing that expertise, and i wonder why? It seems like you were attacking people. I'd like to know why you labeled expert knowledge could be without merit, and was jargon laden. I do not understand your logic, it does not fit into any logic of social research that i've seen generally, nor seen pursued on the internet, so i'm again wondering why you think the statement below was necessary, and why following it, anyone would continue to participate in your study? How does you statement below do anything but bias your study further? I'm pretty sure that it makes me very skeptical about the whole construction of bias that you are using given the biases it states. On May 12, 2007, at 11:26 AM, James Whyte wrote:
I truly appreciate all the people who volunteered for this call. However the posibility of an unbiased study has been compromised by the continuing discussion on this list. IMHO, a collection of anecdotal observations could have merit as a thought piece in the general sense of an ethnography but it would not have the the properties which would suggest general processes. I.e. the subjects are also observers and informed by the discussion.
This is not a negative to me because the discussion has interrogated the use of jargon in scholarly discourse.
Again I thank you for the offer. As scholars I know you understand my logic.
If you are a volunteer and read this please write me off list and let me know you read this. I want to make sure everyone get the word.
Regards,
James
--------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. _______________________________________________ The air-l@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/
jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series