Robert, I apoligze for a terribly inarticulate question. If the Internet is defined purely as technology then with is the best term to describe that which is not technology. I'm struggle with the concept of space as used in social space, cyberspace, virtual space etc. As scientist we seem to have a responsibility to operationalize the terms we use. Sam Robert Cannon <rcannon100@yahoo.com> wrote: That you understand the difference between: Content Applications Internet (TCP/IP) Communications Infrastructure --------------------------------- Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

Nancy and all, I think I take exception to this characterization. 1. Science as I understand it is the systematic study, observation or experimentation of a subject so as to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied. A person who does this is a scientist. 2. A scholar is a person who is trained to study, observe or experiment in a special branch of learning. e.g a scholar is a learned student of something. 3. Academic discussion is purely theoretical. I would hardly discount the level of discussions here as anything but scholarly, academic, or scientific given that our mission is to illuminate basic principles relative to our multi-disciplines and netspace. Sam Nancy Baym <nbaym@ku.edu> wrote: define themselves as "scientists" but as humanists, artists, practioners, and other categories, though that does not lessen the need for definitional clarity. --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

You'll have to take that up with the writers at Webster's Dictionary. Sam Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote: Actually, I take exception with that characterization of science. Science is merely systematic study, everything else that you claim is science is only part of one kind, or more likely one imagination, of science. There are many notions of science in the world, and the word has many basic meanings, some extend to your definition, most do not. The basic meaning that all hold should derive from its origin in latin as scire, which means to know through distinguishing or to know through comparing as we use the word today 'discriminate', yes... science discriminates. The division that is widely recognized is between science and the arts. The arts create things in the world, which is why government is an art, whereas political science studies the world as it is or as it was, it studies history in order, in some cases to discern, how it will be. The 'special' or predictive sciences are the ones where the emphasis is put on experimentation, because experimentation is based in an assumption of repeatability, and predictive sciences should show the same findings to be true for all times given their initial conditions..... In any case, I think that before we go around assigning labels, we should first examine the practices to see what people are really doing. In any case, we aren't scientists, we are researchers and our research takes many forms. If you want to be a scientist, that is fine though, don't be surprised if it ends up as much of a dead-end as the 'pure sociology' of the late 60's. On Oct 17, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Sam Tilden wrote:

Nancy and all,

I think I take exception to this characterization.

1. Science as I understand it is the systematic study, observation or experimentation of a subject so as to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied. A person who does this is a scientist.

Jeremy Hunsinger School of Library and Information Science Pratt Institute () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Jeremy, I will not allow you to start a flame war with me. Pick on somebody else. Sam Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote: yes, that is why there are many dictionaries... and you know what... there are encyclopedias, textbooks, and even a whole field of study:) i don't see many in science citing webster's dictionary as the canonical definition, but perhaps they should be...

You'll have to take that up with the writers at Webster's Dictionary.

Jeremy Hunsinger School of Library and Information Science Pratt Institute () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series _______________________________________________ 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/ --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

I don't think Jeremy is interested in "flaming" anyone, just pointing out that what constitutes science, scientific practice, and scientific practice (the actions of scientists) are just as open to inquiry in this conversation. Coming from a "Science Studies" program, he (and I) ought to know and point this out. Hence why interdisciplinary spaces like this are useful. We bring our understandings to bear on common questions/problems. That is all he was attempting to do I believe. Cheers. Casey On 10/17/06, Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:

yes, that is why there are many dictionaries... and you know what... there are encyclopedias, textbooks, and even a whole field of study:) i don't see many in science citing webster's dictionary as the canonical definition, but perhaps they should be...

...

You'll have to take that up with the writers at Webster's Dictionary.

I reluctantly quote the "untrusted" source Wikipedia. I don't have the advantage of library resources as many of you do, so I am limited to the online references I can access. Since we all seem to agree that Netspace is largely social, I assume the approach to studying it is scientific and will, if mature, be in the general category of a social science. If I have offended by complementing the discourse I apologize. Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means.[1] In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on the meaning of science in the latter sense. Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge that explains observable events in nature as results of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines: Natural sciences, the study of the natural phenomena; Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and societies. Mathematics has both similarities and differences compared to other fields of science. It is similar to other sciences, because it is a rigorous, structured study of topics such as quantity, structure, space, and change. It is, however, different in its method of arriving at results. Mathematics as a whole is vital to the sciences — indeed, major advances in mathematics have often led to major advances in other sciences. Certain aspects of mathematics are indispensable for the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws, both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences). Science as defined above is sometimes termed pure science in order to differentiate it from applied science, the latter being the application of scientific research to human needs. I would assume that a person that practices science is a scientist. Sam Casey O'Donnell <odonnc@rpi.edu> wrote: --------------------------------- Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

Nancy wrote:

... a lot of people on this list would not define themselves as "scientists" but as humanists, artists, practioners, and other categories

What other associations draw from such disparate goals and agendas? And what, if anything, do they accomplish? If "research" is something done by humanists and artists, as well as scientists and practitioners, is there anyone who isn't a researcher? Is this, in essense, the Association of Internet Anythingers? -eg

If "research" is something done by humanists and artists, as well as scientists and practitioners, is there anyone who isn't a researcher? Is this, in essense, the Association of Internet Anythingers?

The #1 goal of AoIR from its outset has been, and I quote from our founding statement of goals: "to provide an interdisciplinary and interprofessional organization for promotion of scholarly and critical research into the social, cultural, political, economic and aesthetic aspects of the Internet." There are millions of people who use the internet but do not take it as a topic of scholarly or critical inquiry (i.e. "internet anythingers"). A look around most any university will reveal that there are many ways of conducting scholarly and critical inquiry other than science and social science, a small sampling of which would include time honored traditions such as philosophy, literary analysis, and artistic production and performance. Recasting these modes of inquiry as science or dismissing them as not research do not further our understandings of the internet and alienate those members of AoIR who use them as their epistimological strategies. Nancy

There are many established ways of knowing and ways of thinking and researching that go beyond 'creative opinion', but are not science as most people understand it. Nancy listed some of them, but your reply would indicate to me that you are simply dismissing all of them without understanding what they add to the sum of human understanding. They may seem to be 'creative opinion', but they can in fact be rigorous methods of investigation. I would suggest that you get hold of a copy of an edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin & Lincoln) or some other 'bible' of qualitative inquiry. It will take you a while to work through it (I'm still dipping into it a year after I first got my second-hand copy from Amazon) but even the early chapters will help to understand some of the issues you profess to be confused about. M-H On 19/10/2006, at 5:30 AM, Sam Tilden wrote:

Nancy,

Could you help me here.

Given your argument, I find it hard to determine what might be "off topic", if it is something that occurs on the internet.

I also can't seem to grasp the boundary between creative opinion and scholarship.

Also, where does an elementalist definition of the Internet square with the goals of the organization?

Pax electronica.

Sam

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' Definitions are an important and useful part of making an argument. That said, as we have seen with other discussions on this list, they are inherently slippery. I'm wondering, at this point, what the point here is; why is it particularly important that we share an understanding of what science is? One of the streams of this discussion (I'll admit that I have not attended to all of the responses) has to do with whether AIR was an organization strictly of "scientists," and who counts as a scientist. I do think that there tends to be some feeling that the closer you fall to the natural sciences--biology, (empirical) physics, etc.--the more "scientific" you are. While some forms of qualitative research are certainly employed by people who tend to call themselves "social scientists" (e.g., interview, etc.), others generally are not (e.g., participant observation). As a practical matter, I suspect that many AIR members would not self-identify as "scientists." While I tend toward the social sciences, I'm ambivalent as to whether the work I do is "science." I do believe it is "research" and "scholarship." It includes informed (I hope!), though not necessarily replicable opinion and interpretation. It also includes making stuff: things that might be termed either "test aparatus" or "art" or "toys," depending on perspective. Many people who consider themselves scientists appreciate and value the work of other scholars, and many non-scientific researchers value and appreciate the work of scientists. The best of both are reflexive about their own process of understanding as well as others' approaches. This mutual respect the surest way to dismantle CP Snow's divide. I think the line between "internet anythings" and "internet scholars," is a questions of consensus, no more or less--an idea that should appeal to a particular brand of "scientist" among us. Alex Halavais Assistant Internet Anything Random Institute of Medium Education Anywhere On 10/18/06, Sam Tilden <tildensam@yahoo.com> wrote:

I am doing no such thing.

The term scientist was invented (a hypothetical construct) in 1833. Prior to that all scholars were "philosophers" and people who investigated physics, chemistry etc. were "natural philosophers". That is why the terminal degree is a doctorate of philosopy. People who write about and make discourse about a subject are fundamentally different than people who are practitioners of that subject. That is unless they use the methods of rigid scholarship to investigate the basic principles of the subject.

A scientist in the sense of this explanation can come from any discipline as long as the intent is to uncover basic understanding by an orderly process.

-- -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //

All, I don't dispute the contribution of scholars that don't identify with "Scientist". The problem that started this discussion was a definition of the word "Internet". Many contributions were both scientific and literary and most of all, thoughtful. I think that what both Ellis and I are attempting to communicate is that, any time a new metaphor enters the language there is the possibility of it being reified and turned into a trope. The term "cyberspace" is such a term and it started as fiction has become a trope in popular usage and is now used in scholarly writing without objectification. I have read many papers from our members and have seen this to be the case. I could be wrong, but I believe that as scholars it is our role to objectify the language of Internet research and subvert this process. As Barry Wellman points out the leaders in our area of investigation are interested in what we are doing. I have had conversations with some of them and they have concerns about the work being less than "objective." On a more practical level, I have investigated deviant behavior in this group. I have reason to believe that lack of objectification has created a situation in which incomplete and imperfect understanding of the many of these tropes and definitions has created the manufacturing of trolls when none exist. In the end, if some understanding of this issue is not addressed it will be impossible for empirically grounded scholars to cite anything associated with AOIR. I know that I am crying the "sky is falling" but I have had this conversation offline with several people not the least of which are two of the people who have been labeled trolls. Both are serious scholars and have been mislabeled. They believe, that given the mission statement of the organization, there is a patent misrepresentation afoot. I will probably join them on the outside by have the temerity of stating this as I have. I apologize for my impertinence. Pax Electronica Sam Nancy Baym <nbaym@ku.edu> wrote:

If "research" is something done by humanists and artists, as well as scientists and practitioners, is there anyone who isn't a researcher? Is this, in essense, the Association of Internet Anythingers?

--------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

Steve, It is the netiquette of this organization that creates private vs public conversations. I am merely following that norm so as to not put myself in harms way. I am acutely aware of these norms since I have studied both the implicit and explicit norms and how they have been applied. This is a subject decided by the executive board of our sponsors. Sam "Dr. Steve Eskow" <drseskow@cox.net> wrote: << The problem that started this discussion was a definition of the word "Internet".>> Why this need to find precise boundaries for a word that encompasses many realms of meaning, that includes technology and the people that use it and the uses they make of it--and much more? <that, any time a new metaphor enters the language there is the possibility of it being reified and turned into a trope. The term "cyberspace" is such a term and it started as fiction has become a trope in popular usage and is now used in scholarly writing without objectification.>> The danger of the yearning for fencing in a concept such as "cyberspace" is that turns a complex world into an object: it reifies, it says, now we know what cyberspace is and isn't. That is: it "objectifies," turns complexity into a simple object that one can hold up and point to and say: This is cyberspace, and that isn't. <case. I could be wrong, but I believe that as scholars it is our role to objectify the language of Internet research and subvert this process.>> It is our role, I believe, to resist the premature drawing of boundaries. There are the physical sciences, and their methods that rest on the mystique of "objectivity"; and there are the human sciences which begin by acknowledging the limits, perhaps the impossibility, of "objectivity," since the observer inevitably sees the phenomena under study through the lenses of a particular language and the assumptions it imposes. <interested in what we are doing. I have had conversations with some of them and they have concerns about the work being less than "objective.">> What work that "we" are doing is less than "objective"? Who are these leaders, and what is the nature of their objections? Why are they anonymous? <group. I have reason to believe that lack of objectification has created a situation in which incomplete and imperfect understanding of the many of these tropes and definitions has created the manufacturing of trolls when none exist.>> What are the reasons you have for this belief? Are they secret? <be impossible for empirically grounded scholars to cite anything associated with AOIR. I know that I am crying the "sky is falling" but I have had this conversation offline with several people not the least of which are two of the people who have been labeled trolls.>> Can you give us one or two examples of poor scholarship associated with AOIR--scholarship that is not "empirically grounded"? The issues raised here are important, but this atmosphere of secret backstage discussions is most offputting. Steve Eskow Nancy Baym wrote:

If "research" is something done by humanists and artists, as well as scientists and practitioners, is there anyone who isn't a researcher? Is this, in essense, the Association of Internet Anythingers?

--------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Bob, I will respond to all of your questions, but it will be a few days. I will not respond as you seem to wish to a mis-representation of what I actually wrote. At no time did I use "poor scholarship" in my writing nor did I say "not empirically grounded" Any implication you may have drawn is your own. I did say that there are terms that have been reified, turned into tropes and subsequently cited. I gave an example of "cyberspace". I offer additional an additional term such as "virtual group or community" which carries the implication of "almost like" a group or community. In context they are presented as if they have been explicitly defined. No proof of "virtuality" has been offered and yet it has been cited as support for other assertions. The term "ties" is another. I presume that this speaks to an internal psychological state but has not been operationalized. There are hundreds of sites to this paper. I have no problem with using them as long as they can be operationized to the context. I will not cite particular papers so as to not appear to be rendering an ad homenim attack. Respectfully, Sam Bob Rehak <brehak1@swarthmore.edu> wrote: Dear Sam, Your reply appears to address only one of Dr. Eskow's queries, to wit: "Who are these leaders, and what is the nature of their objections? Why are they anonymous?" Here are his remaining questions, redacted and numbered for your convenience: 1. Why this need to find precise boundaries for a word that encompasses many realms of meaning, that includes technology and the people that use it and the uses they make of it--and much more? 2. What are the reasons you have for this belief [i.e. "I have reason to believe that lack of objectification has created a situation in which incomplete and imperfect understanding of the many of these tropes and definitions has created the manufacturing of trolls when none exist"]? 3. Can you give us one or two examples of poor scholarship associated with AOIR--scholarship that is not "empirically grounded"? We respectfully await your answers. (I'm particularly interested in your response to #3.) Best wishes, -- Bob Rehak Visiting Assistant Professor Film and Media Studies Swarthmore College Associate Editor Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal _______________________________________________ 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/ --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

Steve, Within the archives of this list are unresolved threads related to this subject. I am not the first nor will I be the last to raise the questions. You asked why these terms need to be defined and I say because they are not resolved. It is raising the questions that generate new ideas. I think that is what we do. Community, within the boundaries of the internet, is no more virtual than conference calls are virtual. Terms, relative to "cyberspace" that use virtual become more and more specious as this communication tool is woven into the fabric of daily life. But I ask, was the friendship or familial relationships virtual when it took a month to get a letter. Were penpals not pals. Ascribing virtuality to communities of people who inter-relate on the internet are no less robust than those generated in "Realspace associations. Most evidence suggest communities form and are robust but are they virtual? The social scientists in our midst have affirmed the formation of communites that is not in dispute. On another note, scholarship, it seems to me, is about constantly seeking refinement for the understanding of basic principals. More often, like piety, just slightly out of reach. While there may not be agreement on what is knowledge, it is the quest that defines the role of scholarship. The people you mentioned may not have agreed on the precise details of the method but they did have a basic understanding that methods were necessary. One thing they did agree on is, to some degree of certainty, that the results once known would be observable by others. As I said earlier, unsuported assertions are either opinions or fictions no matter how elegant or literary. Communities yes, but virtual communities can be easily falsified. There's nothing going on but exploration. Pax electronica, Sam "Dr. Steve Eskow" <drseskow@cox.net> wrote: --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

The goal to "promote scholarly and critical research" seems narrower than "further our understandings of the internet" as you paraphrase. Inquiry seems broader than research, and this difference is implied by your suggestion that differentiating the ideas would dismiss or alienate anyone. I don't mean to dismiss or alienate anyone, of course. I only meant to inquire, in terms tone and intention less dogmatic than Sam, whether the words in the association's name provide meaningful boundaries. Their not doing so wouldn't be *bad* thing, but certainly a curious one - worthy of inquiry, if not research. :) =eg

-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Nancy Baym Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:51 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Definitions

...

If "research" is something done by humanists and artists, as well as scientists and practitioners, is there anyone who isn't a

researcher?

...

Is this, in essense, the Association of Internet Anythingers?

The #1 goal of AoIR from its outset has been, and I quote from our founding statement of goals:

"to provide an interdisciplinary and interprofessional organization for promotion of scholarly and critical research into the social, cultural, political, economic and aesthetic aspects of the Internet."

There are millions of people who use the internet but do not take it as a topic of scholarly or critical inquiry (i.e. "internet anythingers").

A look around most any university will reveal that there are many ways of conducting scholarly and critical inquiry other than science and social science, a small sampling of which would include time honored traditions such as philosophy, literary analysis, and artistic production and performance. Recasting these modes of inquiry as science or dismissing them as not research do not further our understandings of the internet and alienate those members of AoIR who use them as their epistimological strategies.

Nancy _______________________________________________ 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/

it might be that... you are using a problematic interpretative framework and that the framework, the way you are thinking, is actually causing more contradictions than the actual terms themselves. I suggest perhaps investigating the nature of the discourses surrounding the terms. The aoir term 'research' is expansive and not delimitting, there is a boundary, but I'd suggest, pugnaciously, that the end of research is likely on the otherside of pataphysics, and not on this side of society/objectivity. On Oct 21, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Sam Tilden wrote:

All,

Honestly I don't mean to be dogmatic or pugnacious. I am confused by the contradictions I see in Nacy's interpretation and what I think mission statement is about. I'm trying to learn from the hazards thatat others have experienced.

Pax Electronica,

Sam

Sam

Ellis Godard <egodard@csun.edu> wrote: The goal to "promote scholarly and critical research" seems narrower than "further our understandings of the internet" as you paraphrase. Inquiry seems broader than research, and this difference is implied by your suggestion that differentiating the ideas would dismiss or alienate anyone.

I don't mean to dismiss or alienate anyone, of course. I only meant to inquire, in terms tone and intention less dogmatic than Sam, whether the words in the association's name provide meaningful boundaries. Their not doing so wouldn't be *bad* thing, but certainly a curious one - worthy of inquiry, if not research. :)

=eg

...

-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Nancy Baym Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:51 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Definitions

...

If "research" is something done by humanists and artists, as well as scientists and practitioners, is there anyone who isn't a

researcher?

...

Is this, in essense, the Association of Internet Anythingers?

The #1 goal of AoIR from its outset has been, and I quote from our founding statement of goals:

"to provide an interdisciplinary and interprofessional organization for promotion of scholarly and critical research into the social, cultural, political, economic and aesthetic aspects of the Internet."

There are millions of people who use the internet but do not take it as a topic of scholarly or critical inquiry (i.e. "internet anythingers").

A look around most any university will reveal that there are many ways of conducting scholarly and critical inquiry other than science and social science, a small sampling of which would include time honored traditions such as philosophy, literary analysis, and artistic production and performance. Recasting these modes of inquiry as science or dismissing them as not research do not further our understandings of the internet and alienate those members of AoIR who use them as their epistimological strategies.

Nancy _______________________________________________ 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/

_______________________________________________ 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/

--------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. _______________________________________________ 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 Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.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

Denise, Bravo! This is rigor as I understanding it and it encompasses all disciplines. May I quote you. Congratulations, Sam "Denise N. Rall" <denrall@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear AIR-ers - [perhaps this will apply, hoping not to fan the flames here] I wrote a slideshow last year called: "WHAT the *&^!$# is internet research? & HOW the ^*#$# does it work?" I noted the difference between googling something and internet research had to do with the nature of the inquiry (I believe some others have said this). Internet research pursues inquiries that are both: * focused * sustained vs. flinging something into google and hoping for illumination on the spot Further, the research process itself demands three things: * examines the questions that are asked * questions the methods used to frame the questions * finally, questions the answers received I don't mention science as qualitative research does this as well as other types of research. In the end, my definition revolved around questioning the answers as well as asking the questions. Hope this helps . . . . Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD thesis submitted, School of Environ. Science, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Tuesdays: Room T2.17, +61 (0)2 6620 3577 or Mobile 0427 245 497 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/rsm/staff/pages/drall/ Virtual member, Cybermetrics Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

Hi everybody My name is Vanya. I am new here and have really enjoyed all of your discussions thus far. I am a graduate student at the LSE (London School of Economics). I am interested in doing my dissertation on Facebook and the idea of online communities' changing/re-defining social relations. I would like to explore the nature of online/offline relationships. Do any of you know of any published research on this subject or have comments/input/suggestions for me? Your help/direction/advice will greatly be appreciated. Thank you all Vanja Petkovic ________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org on behalf of Sam Tilden Sent: Tue 10/17/2006 7:45 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Definitions Robert, I apoligze for a terribly inarticulate question. If the Internet is defined purely as technology then with is the best term to describe that which is not technology. I'm struggle with the concept of space as used in social space, cyberspace, virtual space etc. As scientist we seem to have a responsibility to operationalize the terms we use. Sam Robert Cannon <rcannon100@yahoo.com> wrote: That you understand the difference between: Content Applications Internet (TCP/IP) Communications Infrastructure --------------------------------- Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out. _______________________________________________ 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/

Thank you Michael for the link below, and thank you Danah Boyd for the effort in putting together the list of research work being done. For an old guy like me this is unsettling. If people want to do research work on a network, places like Ryze, Ecademy, OpenBC and LinkedIn are stable, and have a long track record of people being active with continuous memberships. You can quite easily track the posts of individuals over several years on Ryze, Ecademy and OpenBC. Thank you all for the hint. I've just joined Facebook. Apparently that's where the action is. However the way Facebook is set up it's going to very difficult to get any groups running where useful conversations can happen. I need to do a lot more exploring there. Anyone with any hint's might send me private mail. I'm also a member of MySpace. That's a site where people who have serious purposes have actually built some very interesting pages. I've been spammed with porn since joining MySpace. That could never happen of the four networks I first mentioned. The mixture of people with first experimental web sites, people trying to sell something and people who want to communicate and converse on MySpace is intensely interesting. Here is a link to a letter I wrote on Ryze about the observed changes in people there. http://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=738706&confid=1031 However the most interesting thing about these networks to me, is the failure of most of the people who join to do ANYTHING at all. As I said in a previous letter, my own small survey indicated that most people never join any networks or groups. Of those who do, (I use Ryze as an example) +50% of people achieve in one year what the best 10% achieve in one week. The failure rate, often referred to as the long tail is at least 80% of all members. After that depending on your criteria there is some success but only obvious and sometimes spectacular success in the top 6% or so. You can see the same pattern everywhere. I imagined that once people got online, that they would soon learn about the internet and that they would develop both knowledge and skills at their own pace to become self educating. A tiny number do. That's probably true of everyone here. But the vast majority of people don't get it. For me the clue was spam. The average person in my group hardly ever, and sometimes has NEVER seen any spam. (3 years ago I was getting 100 plus a day.) One man who had been on the Internet for 5 years asked, "What's this spam, people talk about?" In 5 years he had exchanged mail with less than 30 people. I found the video's on YouTube by searching for "OWD" very interesting. As a market researcher I can tell that the sample was not a random sample. The two people who were much like some of the people I've interviewed were remarkable for what they didn't say. The questions asked expected them to have knowledge (biased), and they tried to oblige. The assumptions behind the questions didn't expose their real behaviour. Choose some people at random. You'll only need 5 or 10 to see the picture. Don't say or ask anything, just watch what they do at their own computers in the beginning. Then ask what else they regularly do? Finally do some counting, emails a day, is the email personal of list mail or spam, look at the history file on the browser. How much activity is there? People say "Gee the Internet is great!" But when you look at what they really do, almost nothing, you'll see why there's such a long tail of failure on the social networking sites. The hype and the facts don't match. Researchers are so keen to demonstrate "success" that they set up the research so the failure is masked. Of course the easiest way to do that is to start with a biased sample. Regards John Michael T Zimmer wrote:

Hi - danah boyd has collected a list of much of this work: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2006/08/19/research_on_soc.html (and most of them are on this list, I suspect)

-michael

----- Michael T. Zimmer

I agree with Sam, but I also think that you have to start with Marshall McLuhan. The Medium is the Massage (1967) and his next book War and Peace in the Global Village (1968). McLuhan predicted that technology would be an extension of our physical bodies and that electronic technology would enable us to live in a global village. The Internet was literally in its true infancy at this time and it was primarily for military and research purposes at that time, but a funny thing happened: the researchers began using email to socialize as well as share scientific data. The rest is history. Look at Jenkins new books on convergence. Some of the best literature is on your side of the pond because industry lawyers and lobbyists in the states have joined forces to prevent true competition and protect and extend their copyright privileges to the point that the concept of fair use barely exists. Chris Heidelberg PhD Student Morgan State University -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tilden Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:00 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Communities Vanya, Almost any writing by our colleague, Barry Wellman, since 1972 should be included in your research. Sam V.Petkovic@lse.ac.uk wrote: Hi everybody My name is Vanya. I am new here and have really enjoyed all of your discussions thus far. I am a graduate student at the LSE (London School of Economics). I am interested in doing my dissertation on Facebook and the idea of online communities' changing/re-defining social relations. I would like to explore the nature of online/offline relationships. Do any of you know of any published research on this subject or have comments/input/suggestions for me? Your help/direction/advice will greatly be appreciated. Thank you all Vanja Petkovic ________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org on behalf of Sam Tilden Sent: Tue 10/17/2006 7:45 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Definitions Robert, I apoligze for a terribly inarticulate question. If the Internet is defined purely as technology then with is the best term to describe that which is not technology. I'm struggle with the concept of space as used in social space, cyberspace, virtual space etc. As scientist we seem to have a responsibility to operationalize the terms we use. Sam Robert Cannon wrote: That you understand the difference between: Content Applications Internet (TCP/IP) Communications Infrastructure --------------------------------- Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out. _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/