Re: [Air-l] on journals ... | direction of internet research as a discipline
I see a lot of parallels between political science and the development of the internet research field. Though my perspective is slanted since my roots are in poli sci. Political Science, organized formally within APSA, has been around since the days of Woodrow Wilson (specifically 1903). Yet while I was in grad school, it struck me how much the field still struggles with self-identity. Students and even some professors would periodically raise questions asking what makes Political Science different from Sociology? In terms of theory, some would say the former is a natural extension of the latter... generating middle-range theories and defined largely by the wealth and types of observable data and subject matter. Ellis mentioned this kind of disciplinary definition/parameter in her previous message (below). For those who like historical contexts, you might be interested in this presidential keynote speech given in 1904, at the first APSA conference: http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/190405AddrGOODNOW.pdf APSA aside, I'm pretty sure the "political science" field (at least in the U.S.) has been around for almost 150 years.. and there are still some discipline identity issues. On a separate tangent, it will be interesting to see the progression of the Berners-Lee/ Web Science Research Initiative (http://www.webscience.org/), and how it grows with respect to the already established internet research field. Do folks here see "Web Science" becoming a part of AoIR? do you see WSRI as bringing added value to a larger field of internet research? or do you see this movement as reinventing the wheel? - Paul
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Air-l] on journals ...
Ellis Godard wrote: I'm curious how many others think/believe/expect this. Disciplines can be defined by their subject matter, methods, or perspectives (typically some combination), but AOIR is diverse in all three of these regards - and intentionally (perhaps even increasingly) so. Even if those fascinated with "inter-/trans-"/boundary-crossing focus their career attention within AOIR, and those of us with disciplinary inclinations depart, to what extent can unbounded diversity provide a foundation for a home anything, much less a home discipline?
Paul, Thanks for the comparison to Poly Sci. It reflects the comment I made about disciplinarity and boundary disputes. The psychologist George Miller (I paraphrase) said, When someone tells me something I try to understand the circumstances it might be true." Poly Sci's growing pains required the intellectual tolerance to minimize boundary disputes.The study of the Internet/Netspace/webscience requires the same tolerance. Recent jabs a Berniers-Lee in this forum reflects intolerance and does not advance the field. At the time the comments remided me of a person sitting at a desk writing with disdain about Edison's invention of the light bulb and doing so in the light it provided. IMHO study of the Internet/Netspace is by nature transdisciplinary (not cross or multi) and for it to become a field it will have to resolve basic issues in perspective, vocabulary and method. Unfortunately, many voices who have attemted this have been silenced. James Paul DiPerna <pdiperna@blauexchange.org> wrote: I see a lot of parallels between political science and the development of the internet research field. Though my perspective is slanted since my roots are in poli sci. Political Science, organized formally within APSA, has been around since the days of Woodrow Wilson (specifically 1903). Yet while I was in grad school, it struck me how much the field still struggles with self-identity. Students and even some professors would periodically raise questions asking what makes Political Science different from Sociology? In terms of theory, some would say the former is a natural extension of the latter... generating middle-range theories and defined largely by the wealth and types of observable data and subject matter. Ellis mentioned this kind of disciplinary definition/parameter in her previous message (below). For those who like historical contexts, you might be interested in this presidential keynote speech given in 1904, at the first APSA conference: http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/190405AddrGOODNOW.pdf APSA aside, I'm pretty sure the "political science" field (at least in the U.S.) has been around for almost 150 years.. and there are still some discipline identity issues. On a separate tangent, it will be interesting to see the progression of the Berners-Lee/ Web Science Research Initiative (http://www.webscience.org/), and how it grows with respect to the already established internet research field. Do folks here see "Web Science" becoming a part of AoIR? do you see WSRI as bringing added value to a larger field of internet research? or do you see this movement as reinventing the wheel? - Paul
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Air-l] on journals ...
Ellis Godard wrote: I'm curious how many others think/believe/expect this. Disciplines can be defined by their subject matter, methods, or perspectives (typically some combination), but AOIR is diverse in all three of these regards - and intentionally (perhaps even increasingly) so. Even if those fascinated with "inter-/trans-"/boundary-crossing focus their career attention within AOIR, and those of us with disciplinary inclinations depart, to what extent can unbounded diversity provide a foundation for a home anything, much less a home discipline? _______________________________________________ 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/ --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
While I should be grading papers, etc., I can't resist pointing out some basic logical errors -
Recent jabs a Berniers-Lee in this forum reflects intolerance and does not advance the field.
At the time the comments remided me of a person sitting at a desk writing with disdain about Edison's invention of the light bulb and doing so in the light it provided.
The latter is questionable analogy - especially as its generalized consequence is that no critique is permitted of a technology / artifact, once that technology / artifact is visited on the world. So I can't encourage - while writing in a room still illuminated by incandescent bulbs (not my choice; my house has 'em) - my students to switch to flourescents and other forms of lighting, despite the fact that the incandescent bulb is a comparative energy hog? Hmm. The first paragraph risks another logical fallacy - affirming the consequent: If one is intolerant, one will criticize "founding fathers" (and personal heroes). Someone(s) have criticized f.f./p.h. Therefore, someone(s) are intolerant. The fallacy of affirming the consequent confuses a necessary condition (intolerance) for a sufficient condition (the only possible condition needed for an outcome - critique). This excludes the obvious: perhaps one is critical because there is something to criticize. To demonstrate intolerance as the sole source of critique, one would have to show said critique to rest only on intolerance - not, say, logic, evidence, argument, etc. A difficult trick, to be sure - good luck! cordially, - c. Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies <http://www.drury.edu/gp21> Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee <http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ethics.html> Co-Editor, International Journal of Internet Research Ethics http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ijire.html Co-chair, CATaC conferences <www.catacconference.org> Vice-President, Association of Internet Researchers <www.aoir.org> Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes <http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php> Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23
I appreciate the lesson. I appears I posted one more paper for you to grade. Thanks, James Charles Ess <cmess@drury.edu> wrote: While I should be grading papers, etc., I can't resist pointing out some basic logical errors -
Recent jabs a Berniers-Lee in this forum reflects intolerance and does not advance the field.
At the time the comments remided me of a person sitting at a desk writing with disdain about Edison's invention of the light bulb and doing so in the light it provided.
The latter is questionable analogy - especially as its generalized consequence is that no critique is permitted of a technology / artifact, once that technology / artifact is visited on the world. So I can't encourage - while writing in a room still illuminated by incandescent bulbs (not my choice; my house has 'em) - my students to switch to flourescents and other forms of lighting, despite the fact that the incandescent bulb is a comparative energy hog? Hmm. The first paragraph risks another logical fallacy - affirming the consequent: If one is intolerant, one will criticize "founding fathers" (and personal heroes). Someone(s) have criticized f.f./p.h. Therefore, someone(s) are intolerant. The fallacy of affirming the consequent confuses a necessary condition (intolerance) for a sufficient condition (the only possible condition needed for an outcome - critique). This excludes the obvious: perhaps one is critical because there is something to criticize. To demonstrate intolerance as the sole source of critique, one would have to show said critique to rest only on intolerance - not, say, logic, evidence, argument, etc. A difficult trick, to be sure - good luck! cordially, - c. Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee Co-Editor, International Journal of Internet Research Ethics http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ijire.html Co-chair, CATaC conferences Vice-President, Association of Internet Researchers Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23 _______________________________________________ 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/ --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
participants (3)
-
Charles Ess -
James Whyte -
Paul DiPerna