A list that better fulfills an internet research mission.
I'm Tom Diffenbach, a political consultant specializing in dynamics of action, not an academic, and also a person who has owned, operated, used, and studied websites and lists for years. I value aoir for its resources and also as a case study of sorts. At times I observe recognizable behaviors in this list and wait to see if anyone mentions them. One recent example was the discussion of some not-so-important subject (I already forget:) during the holidays. This fits a pattern of lists cycling thru a period where everyone, including those who at the moment perhaps don't have anything to contribute academically or professionally, get to share a comment or two. It helps to rejuvenate a list but also contributes at least temporarily to reducing the quality of its content. Currently the "rules or no rules" discussion so common to lists is on our front burner. I recall one medical-legal list where a "no rules" attorney insisted on posting occasional crude humor arguing that it was welcomed (or at least not objected to) by many. Soon after, he created a somewhat competing list where he was very much the rule-maker and disqualified his humorous type of posts from his list to maintain its professionalism. That might suggest to you what this political consultant see as a prospect that aoir should consider: that serious professionals on this list, openly or quietly, will find or start a similar list. The issue isn't so much whether there should be rules but whether an internet researcher can find a list that better fulfills an internet research mission. With respect, Tom
While I agree that there is a possibility of a split for a list like this, as we have all seen many times before. I think the purpose of this list(air-l) as the primary list of AoIR community is its key distinguishing factor. I operate around 15 lists that are all somewhat related to internet research, and while they are all related, none of them can replace air-l. AoIR even has an effort underway to catalogue and provide information about all related lists, this will build and strengthen the broader community that AoIR services(you can find information on that in the archives). I am also on many other lists and they all cover different topics related to internet research. But there can be only one list for the Association of Internet Researchers, and that is this list. The list and AoIR have a wide variety of rules already, see: http://www.aoir.org/faq.html#Subscription for information on the list and http://www.aoir.org for more information on AoIR. In my opinion, someone might make a list that better fulfills a part of their vision of the internet research mission, but it will not be fulfilling the mission of AoIR, its members and community. Of course, people can join the list and not join AoIR, that why the list is so great, it reaches out to the community of researchers:) However, I encourage you all to join aoir if you are not already members. Membership has its benefits:) You can do so from: http://www.aoir.org/airjoin.html
The issue isn't so much whether there should be rules but whether an internet researcher can find a list that better fulfills an internet research mission.
With respect, Tom
-- jeremy hunsinger http://www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy cddc/political science http://www.cddc.vt.edu 526 major williams hall 0130 http://www.dromocracy.com virginia tech -under construction blacksburg, va 24061 540-231-7614 this email was sent from my office
At 12:58 PM -0500 3/8/02, Tom Diffenbach wrote:
That might suggest to you what this political consultant see as a prospect that aoir should consider: that serious professionals on this list, openly or quietly, will find or start a similar list. The issue isn't so much whether there should be rules but whether an internet researcher can find a list that better fulfills an internet research mission.
To which I can only say - I would subscribe. AoIR got its start as an e-mail list, and may well meet its end as one. I hope that's not the case. But it's up to the people on the list to do as they do and say as they say. I don't think I would be happy about AoIR trying to structure interaction on air-l in such a way that it perpetuates itself as an organization. What you describe, Tom, is a very possible scenario, and always will be. What we have been trying to do with AoIR is create more than air-l (which, as a reminder, is open to _anyone_, whether they are a dues-paying AoIR member or not), via the Web site, conference and additional means (see http://aoir.org/faq.html and other pages on the site for more details). For many people air-l may be the only contact with AoIR, which is fine. I suspect that many are also subscribed to other Internet research-oriented lists. What the executive committee has discussed is trying to find a way to poll members to learn more about what they'd like to see. However, that's a research project unto itself. We're an all-volunteer organization, and could certainly use more volunteers, and we are in the process of creating some additional working groups and the like, in hopes that we will get additional help. As a final thought, I'm not sure that air-l has "an Internet research mission" as such. Much like the kinds of discussions that go on in the hallways at trade shows and conferences and the U.S. Congress, I've found air-l to be a conversation that people sometimes drop in on and sometimes tune out. I reckon in some very, very broad way all the messages (spam excepted when that does turn up, of course, but even that could be construed as...) are somehow related to Internet research. Even the messages about the list, these sort of meta-threads, could be seen that way, and they're an interesting phenomenon themselves! Thanks, Sj
CALL FOR CHAPTER PROPOSALS Educating Managers with Tomorrow's Technologies. Charles Wankel and Robert DeFillippi (Editors) Information Age Press, Greenwich, CT. This second volume in the Research in Management Education and Development series will cover technology-based innovations in management education. Suggested topics for chapter proposals include: New and emerging uses of technology in management education. New Web and Net applications. Technological advances in management simulations. Intelligent tutoring. Advances in distance learning. Virtual collaboration. Curricula leveraging new technology. Partnerships in using new technology. Teaching/learning in contexts of new technologies. Addressing technology deficits in management education Global issues and technological solutions. Sharing solutions in new technologies. Learning technologies. New media. Schedule for Publication: Book chapter proposals received April 6, 2002 Notification of accepted chapter proposals April 20, 2002 Receive full book chapters September 1, 2002 Review book chapters, and give feedback October 15, 2002 Receive final book chapters November 15, 2002 Final book received by publisher December 31, 2002 Submit proposals by Microsoft Word email attachment. Include a brief biography covering current institutional affiliation and position, and a listing of your relevant publications, and educational background. Send proposals and inquiries to both: Charles Wankel, St. Johns University wankel@stjohns.edu Robert DeFillippi, Suffolk University rdefilli@suffolk.edu
participants (4)
-
Charles Wankel -
jeremy hunsinger -
Steve Jones -
Tom Diffenbach