Re: [Air-l] "lurking"
I agree: "lurk" has a negative ring, and not without reason: when the expression came into being, it was inconceivable that someone would sit on a BBS and do nothing but lurk in the message section. Now, however, people spend days at a time online doing nothing but lurk in the bandwidth. Perhaps we should change the word, to reflect the changing time: I'm in favor of "wallflower." Chris Berg TA - English Dept., NC State University Ph.D. Student - CRDM Office: T-G116A Phone: 513-7967 cbberg@ncsu.edu http://www4.ncsu.edu/~cbberg
Actually, I've totally missed the plot of the great taxonomic discussion about lurkers and so on, but reading an article about online focus group I've revealed the following passage: "The existence of ‘lurkers’ may lead to group fading, as some active participants may be disheartened to continue with the discussion when they fail to get any feedback, verbal or non-verbal, from others." (Cher Ping, Lim and Seng Chee, Tan Online discussion boards for focus group interviews: an exploratory study. Journal of Educational Enquiry, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2001). Actually this part devoted only to online focus groups, but, however... Before that (I mean listserv's discussion and article) I had nothing against lurkers, as I'm usually one of them. But now, I remembered why different online communities "die" and I think, that one of the reasons is a lack of feedback from potential audience. Especially at "start up" period. For example, I used to prepare electronic versions of texts for seminars in LJ community of my group,posted useful links, tried to start some discussions and so on. But without decent response (an even simple "thanks!")I ceased my attempts. Not every person can fuel his activity with a pure enthusiasm after all. So, my point is that "lurking" indeed has negative effects especially in the "new born" communities. In old, established virtual communities with thousands of participants, local "centralities" and celebrities and so on lurkers are quite normal, usual and absolutely not dangerous or irritating part of "audience". Sorry, I really don't have time to read through all the discussion about lurkers, so, I'm pretty sure, that someone have already told smth like this. Best wishes, Alexander Semenov.
The greater implication of this thread is about "labeling" and the inherent potential for negative impact. IMHO, labeling is neither scholarly or useful. Howard Becker, in the book "Outsiders" clearly spells out the impact that this variety of stereotypeing has particular impact on social research. Patricia Lange refers to these labels as DOXA i.e categories that are assumed to be true by both scholarly and non-scholarly communities (I paraphrase). Elijah asked what was my problem with trolls. I have none, but I do have problems with the host of jagonistics label of the Internet. Besides, it seems that trolls are often the spice in the soup. As John Kennedy once said, "If you only listen to people that agree with you, all you hear is your own voice." James James --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
On 5/11/07, James Whyte <whyte.james@yahoo.com> wrote:
The greater implication of this thread is about "labeling" and the inherent potential for negative impact.
IMHO, labeling is neither scholarly or useful.
Howard Becker, in the book "Outsiders" clearly spells out the impact that this variety of stereotypeing has particular impact on social research.
Hmmm...we seem to be careening off course. But... I would like to note that you cannot do otherwise when it comes to labeling. It's how we (humans) work. Now, labels in and of themselves do work beyond what we intend, but presuming that somehow you're above it or beyond it is terribly faulty. And actually many would say that labeling is necessary for academics and scholars, and extremely useful. "That behavior" is a label. "Deviant behavior" is also a label. "Abnormal behavior" is also a label. Each does different work. This, not that. What if instead I said: "Playful behavior" (also a label) Suddenly it has a different connotation. I think the discussion is useful. We do need other terms, because sometimes those we've already been using become problematic given surrounding (contextual) sets of meanings. So we revise them. This is where the healthy discussion is. Having read Becker I think he's talking more about those contextual sets of meanings and what it means for those that become labeled. Not that labeling is undesirable. Take my work with video game developers as an example. That's a label. There are insiders and outsiders. I can question and pressure those insides and outsides. But to say that no label is necessary leaves me talking about... ? So now let's talk about the scholarly part. A good friend of mine looks at "technological recesses" a label that has already gotten him cited several times. You even reference Becker's "outsiders" because he's given it a label, and one rooted in literature. Becker is exceedingly good at doing this, leveraging contextual meaning systems. It is scholarly. It is not useful and unscholarly to not interrogate these categories. True. I thought that was what was happening. I like Lane's label of "auditing", but he and I are both labeled RPI/STS, and as such, I'm biased. Cheers. Casey
Casey, I could not agree more. <Having read Becker I think he's talking more about those contextual <sets of meanings and what it means for those that become labeled. Thanks for the clarification! Regards, James --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
I think what Becker underlines in Outsiders is that we are all moral entrepreneurs, and the question then becomes wether we want to enforce or challenge the connotations of the word "lurker", or the social rules that enforce that label. I wouldn´t say though that creating a (nicer sounding) academic synonym would necessarily be a "challenge" in itself. The challenge would be studying how lurkers become lurkers in social interaction. Or how lurkers become silent participants on researchers mailing lists. ;) "The deviant [lurker] is one to whom that label has sucessfully been applied; deviant [lurker] behavior is behavior that people so label" (p.9) -Åsa -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] För Casey O'Donnell Skickat: den 11 maj 2007 21:33 Till: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Ämne: Re: [Air-l] "lurking" On 5/11/07, James Whyte <whyte.james@yahoo.com> wrote:
The greater implication of this thread is about "labeling" and the inherent potential for negative impact.
IMHO, labeling is neither scholarly or useful.
Howard Becker, in the book "Outsiders" clearly spells out the impact
that this variety of stereotypeing has particular impact on social research.
Hmmm...we seem to be careening off course. But... I would like to note that you cannot do otherwise when it comes to labeling. It's how we (humans) work. Now, labels in and of themselves do work beyond what we intend, but presuming that somehow you're above it or beyond it is terribly faulty. And actually many would say that labeling is necessary for academics and scholars, and extremely useful. "That behavior" is a label. "Deviant behavior" is also a label. "Abnormal behavior" is also a label. Each does different work. This, not that. What if instead I said: "Playful behavior" (also a label) Suddenly it has a different connotation. I think the discussion is useful. We do need other terms, because sometimes those we've already been using become problematic given surrounding (contextual) sets of meanings. So we revise them. This is where the healthy discussion is. Having read Becker I think he's talking more about those contextual sets of meanings and what it means for those that become labeled. Not that labeling is undesirable. Take my work with video game developers as an example. That's a label. There are insiders and outsiders. I can question and pressure those insides and outsides. But to say that no label is necessary leaves me talking about... ? So now let's talk about the scholarly part. A good friend of mine looks at "technological recesses" a label that has already gotten him cited several times. You even reference Becker's "outsiders" because he's given it a label, and one rooted in literature. Becker is exceedingly good at doing this, leveraging contextual meaning systems. It is scholarly. It is not useful and unscholarly to not interrogate these categories. True. I thought that was what was happening. I like Lane's label of "auditing", but he and I are both labeled RPI/STS, and as such, I'm biased. Cheers. Casey _______________________________________________ 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/
On 5/11/07, Christopher Berg <cbberg@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
I agree: "lurk" has a negative ring, and not without reason: when the expression came into being, it was inconceivable that someone would sit on a BBS and do nothing but lurk in the message section.
Although it's not what most of us would consider a traditional scholarly text, the Jargon File asserts the opposite: "This term is not pejorative and indeed is casually used reflexively: 'Oh, I'm just lurking'" (the full definition can be found at http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/L/lurker.html). That matches my own experiences in which lurking is often seen to be a wise activity, particularly for new members who are often advised to lurk for a period of time until they understand the cultural norms, expectations, and recent history of the particular listserv, message board, etc. There is also the oft-used admonition "Lurk more!" when someone is perceived to (a) be new and (b) have committed a perceived mistake that could have been prevented if he or she had simply paid more attention to norms, expectations, and history. It is used in a negative sense but that negativity derives from the assertion that one has not paid enough attention to things important to that particular group. In other words, *not* lurking is sometimes seen as a negative trait or activity. Apologies if this ground has already been covered. These threads are growing long and I fear that I may have overlooked or forgotten some things already said! Kevin
participants (6)
-
Alexander Semenov -
Casey O'Donnell -
Christopher Berg -
James Whyte -
Kevin Guidry -
Åsa Rosenberg