Re: first post (An Internet Without Space/reply to Elijah)
Elijah, you wrote that I was coming across as a bit rude, even for an Australian ( whatever that means). If this is so, I apologise although with so many hardened academics in here I hardly think they could offended by anything I would have to say given the challenging environments they work in. Maybe I watch too much TV but isn't academia full of overheated debate, back stabbing and aggressive rivalry? Cant imagine a little mouse like me upsetting people from that environment :-) Anyhow, I won't argue with you as to whether there has been a lot or little number crunching going on or whether academia should be results oriented. I'm sure those arguments go on every day in universities and I'll let the taxpayers of the world worry about the results issue. I should point out, however, that I am no stranger to crunching numbers. For the past decade I have developed a global reputation in a few sports as a statistician who produces interesting and innovative results - results that have been widely published, results that could then be found easily, results that pleased an international audience with far more knowledge of the mechanics of the sport than I possessed. Results produced without concepts, without official "methods", but produced efficiently and by being relevant the statistics earnt myself an international reputation. I have designed web pages for the worlds largest single sport website, created globally accepted statistical rankings, had my statistically backed theories published in official sports annual journals and been quoted widely and used as a source in daily newspapers,TV and radio in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. In my field of online sports statistics I was a world leader. I am no stranger to numbers, no stranger to getting from point A to B in a straight line and no stranger to being relevant. And it is my goal to produce relevant results in the field of Internet Research, without conceptualising/ hallucinating, without using geek speak, but producing results that are efficient, able to be understood by every English speaking person on the planet and published widely by the media for the benefit of the public - and my results will be relevant. That may be a brash Australian attitude, but its the only one I know and Im sure every Texan on the list would understand it !! Time will tell if I succeed or fail... :-) regards, time to do some assignments... ET
Anyhow, I won't argue with you as to whether there has been a lot or little number crunching going on or whether academia should be results oriented.
It sounds like a productive argument to have, as far as I'm concerned - since most of your premises do hinge upon these position statements that you're making.
And it is my goal to produce relevant results in the field of Internet Research, without conceptualising/ hallucinating, without using geek speak, but producing results that are efficient, able to be understood by every English speaking person on the planet and published widely by the media for the benefit of the public - and my results will be relevant.
What are your criteria for relevancy of research? upon what data are you basing your evaluation of internet research as less than acceptably numerical? (or less than empirically grounded, I think many of us might say...) And when did 'conceptualizing' come to imply hallucination? I think I've missed something crucial, here .... elijah
I did a little experiment today - very unscientific and not statistical in the least. However, I was made curious by Eero's comments about a new generation of Internet users growing up who see the Internet differently than those people who published on it in the 1990s. I do think that my students *use* the Internet differently (i.e., most of them have never heard of Usenet, and of course, they haven't used it). But does that mean they see it differently, or think of it differently? First of all, we made a list of metaphors that they associate with the Internet. Interestingly, not a single one among the 39 seniors came up with the term "tool." The one almost all identified as their primary metaphor or thought construct was "web." When asked whether "web" as in "spider web" or "web" as in "world wide web," they seemed to agree that they think "world wide web" when they think "Internet." In a way, one could conclude that they thus think of the Internet as an information seeking tool, though none of them used the term "tool." Very intriguing! Then I had them read a brief handout. I took most of Michele's original post about space/place and her questioning of those metaphors. I took most of Eero's reply directed to me where he introduces the notion of communication tool, talks about a new generation growing up who doesn't much care about outdated fantasies of cyberspace, and his reminder that the majority of Internet users use the Internet without thinking too much about it or describing their usage in lofty terms (I'm paraphrazing, obviously). Then I took Radhika's short post in which she refers to the importance of context (historical, social, cultural, political, etc.) in which the same data can mean different things. I didn't take a stand on any of these, but instead had them discuss which ideas they agreed with, which one's they didn't, and why. Here's the summary of the discussion: The majority of students likes the idea of cyber*space*, chat *rooms*, URLs as virtual geographic *places*, etc. because they like the analogy of cyberspace to offline geographies. However, they do have a difficult time grasping the notions of "community" as they don't tend to spend a lot of time in online environments interacting with people they don't know. They think that part of the Internet is definitely a tool, but that's not all it is, and that basic statistics (such as usage numbers etc.) are interesting, but that they are meaningless without a context. The people have spoken! I am fascinated by the results of my very unscientific and completely-void-of-numbers research! To me it sounds like at least according to my 39 students, there is hope that the Internet will continue to provide an online environment in which interaction can take place for those who want that, in addition to being a useful communication/information tool. As they pointed out, there's not really one Internet anymore anyway. There's different components to it. Now, where did I hear that idea before? Oh yes, in one of Steve Jones' speeches.... Best, Ulla -- Ulla Bunz Assistant Professor Department of Communication Rutgers University 4 Huntington Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901
participants (3)
-
Eero Tarik -
elijah wright -
Ulla Bunz