Hello Sarah
> I
> use speech ( Supernova
I had to look that up! I would have said, use NaturallySpeaking for
speech input (including browsing), and JAWS -- which you must be using
now -- plus Jawbone for integration.
I'll check and get back to you,
Judy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Supple" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Internet "research"
> HI, the point about researcher transparency seems an important one
to me.
> Whatever the legal implications are of using other peoples
conversations
> from the internet surely it also means pretending one can report
other
> peoples conversations objectively , whereas in fact I believe that
context
> is essential when considering peoples experiences.
> As an aside whilst I am putting in my tuppence worth. As a partially
blind
> person I still have not been able to access the internet
independently. I
> use speech ( Supernova to be precise) on my lap top and every time I
try and
> access the internet it stutters uncontrollably thus I can't read any
of it.
> Does anyone know how a visually impaired person is supposed to
access the
> internet successfully? Thanks, Sarah Supple.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mairian Scott-Hill" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Internet "research"
>
>
> > Dear Judy,
> >
> > Sorry I haven't been clear. You wrote
> > >
> > > bii) Does it represent a risk to list participants and/or to
disabled
> > > people (including children)?
> > >
> > > (A: I can't work out which of the possible meanings of this you
have
> > > in mind)
> >
> > I think we have some examples within this discussion. Our friendly
list
> > administrator suggests that the list was set up to allow
connections
> between
> > 'like-minded' people and that, 'many disability groups have found
it very
> > useful to lurk on this list and to learn more about the way that
academics
> > talk to one another'. Given the tortuous relationship between
academics
> and
> > activists, discussed many times on the list, and the fact that on
this
> list
> > it is not clear who is who, there is always a risk that 'how we
talk
> > together' is 'used' against us when in fact it may be
representative of
> only
> > a small minority of academics. The other example, which I did
refer to was
> > the question of adults lurking on (disabled) children's lists -
which are
> > usually adult-free spaces - to do research that might negatively
influence
> > disabled children's lives. And finally, the goals of
'emancipatory'
> research
> > include researcher transparency and accountability. 'Lurking'
seems an
> > anathema to these goals.
> > >
> > > First, extraction from thread by means of quotation ignores
> > > contributions by other participants (and "the List" and its
ways).
> > >
> > > Isn't the way to deal with this simply to make that point then
quote?
> >
> > No, because I think the collectivity of these discussions is an
important
> > way to challenge individualism and ownership. But on a
methodological
> level,
> > my work spans two main disciplines - disability studies and
applied
> > discourse studies - and, certainly in the latter, the rule is 'the
more
> data
> > the better' because it has to be shown how meaning develops.
Statements
> are
> > not taken as givens. Extraction of individual statements without
> attempting
> > to show (some of) their history fails, for example, to show how
particular
> > participants become 'disabled'. So really, it boils down to a
question of
> > how much data we need.
> > >
> > > Second, if a change is made at someone's request
> > > then their "comment might look
> > > very silly when placed back in the context of the original
discussion"
> > > is surely only material to people who can read the original
> > > discussion, still, you might want to deal with this in the same
way,
> > > i.e. by mentioning it as a methodological point.
> > >
> > >> Since, as a researcher, I'm
> > >> interested in the discussion itself ...
> > > (cut)
> > >> - this is a real methodological
> > >> and ethical problem for me
> > >
> > > But you can present the discussion faithfully -- insofar as that
can
> > > ever be done! -- without actually quoting or in addition to the
> > > quotes.
> >
> > I can analyse the discussion, whilst acknowledging that the
analysis is
> > mine, but in doing this without presenting the original
discussion, there
> is
> > a danger that the voices of the participants in the discussion are
> silenced.
> > If I present the data in situ then at least there is an
opportunity for
> > anyone reading the research to challenge my analysis and
assumptions on
> the
> > basis of that the data - a process which, I hope, would improve
the
> quality
> > of the research over time. That is to say, I think the process of
critique
> > by disabled people and others can happen from the moment that the
first
> and
> > necessarily imperfect presentation is made.
> >
> > > My apologies for behaving as though you were trying to steal
someone's
> > > work; it was other people's denial that copyright might be
involved
> > > that got to me. I have been in this discussion with lawyers,
twice
> > > now; the jury's in.
> >
> > I didn't interpret your posts in this way
> >
> > Mairian
> >
> > ________________End of message______________________
> >
> > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> > are now located at:
> >
> > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> >
> > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> >
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|