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.
|