Mairian
> 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
Yes. I see. I thought you meant something different by "risk",
something stronger. I do take your point.
>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
I didn't realise you'd mentioned children's lists. There seem to be
two points here, 1) that adults shouldn't anyway be able to join
children's lists (or, not without children knowing) 2) (a point that
doesn't apply only to children or the disabled) that a lurker (who is
lurking only for the purposes of research) might be able by research
or in other ways to damage the lives of participants and in certain
cases other people who belong to the group of which participants are a
part (and so on!).
Sorry to make that so long and inelegant.
I tend anyway to prefer lists that have a Review function, so everyone
can know who's a List member.
>And finally, the goals of 'emancipatory' research
> include researcher transparency and >accountability. 'Lurking' seems
an
> anathema to these goals.
I agree -- on the whole -- I suggested the term "covert [participant?]
observation" as a possible methodological term. The adoption of that
method is a matter for the researcher, in the end
(because of course covert [participant] observation has its merits).
I say "on the whole" because I am not 100 per cent convinced that
research that is emancipatory in its effects/results needs to be
accountable and transparent. That doesn't apply to this List.
>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
I didn't realise you were working in discourse studies. I suspect my
answer remains the same -- and that if you need to study narratives,
including narratives that emerge from list discussion, you'd have to
find another way of doing it. That is -- to go on the attack, but
generally, not personally -- one implication of your view is that the
only way adequately to represent the discourse is to copy it all out
and then re-present it. (I'm not being sarcastic; I have thought
about this in abstraction from disability studies and discourse
analysis and indeed before I was really aware of either.) Abstraction
and so distortion and misrepresentation are to my mind almost
inevitable; statistics -- for example -- not only represent
narratives, they subsume and conceal and misrepresent them; but we
must employ statistics.
I don't think you're going to find this helpful! It is though
well-intentioned.
> If I present the data in situ (etc.)
But by giving your sources you enable a reader who is prepared to do
the work to find that out for themselves.
>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.
Yes -- but at the end (I suppose this is what I am really trying to
get at and where I've been moving) there is a finished research
product that cannot possibly encompass all of that and so will anyway
distort.
In sum; I respect what you're trying to do but think it may be
impossible, and as I wasn't bad at trying the impossible myself, I'm
trying to push you away from it (I suppose)
I do think there are issues here that cannot be resolved.
> I didn't interpret your posts in this way
Thank you. I do understand your concern; I haven't as it happens come
across anything worrying in submissions to journals (but then I worked
in a very different field), but I have in book manuscripts (no further
comment)
Judy Evans
Cardiff, Wales (UK)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mairian Scott-Hill" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Judy Evans" <[log in to unmask]>;
<[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.
|