John,
The way I intended to use the membership data is as follows. Consider the following 4 heterodox associations--URPE, AFEE, ASE, IAFFE. Also note that URPE has 363 members--of these 84 belong to 1 or more of the other three associations. This clearly indicates that over 20% of URPE members are engaged across paradigms--thus not isolated. This is an interesting point if one wants to argue like I do that over the past decade heterodox economists have become more engaged across paradigms in opposition to the view that the various heterodox approaches operate in complete isolation of each other.
A second way of using the data is as follows: from the four associations at least 64 individuals located in the UK are in some way connected to heterodox economics. Thus it can be inferred that there are at least around 50-55 heterodox economists in the UK. And this can be used to determine with this community of heterodox economists is large enough to sustain itself, etc. etc. Secondly, only 2 of the individuals are associated with two of the approaches and the rest are associated with only one of the approaches, as indicated by membership in the associations. Thus a weak inference from the data is that heterodox economists in the UK are highly segregated and even perhaps sectarian, unlike say a good many members of URPE.
Of course the kind of questions that the data can be used to give insights are many--most of the questions I will be addressing concern the extent and interdependency of the community of heterodox economists both nationally and internationally. This can be done without revealing names of individuals--and if an argument required the disclosure of individual names, then I would contact the individuals and request permission. This is what is done by all researchers engaged in this kind of research. I should note that the membership of AFEE and IAFFE is part of the public domain (they publish membership lists available to all members) while the membership list of URPE and ASE are available to members upon request (and the nature of the request).
I hope this addresses your concerns.
As for Jerry's statement that I am a member of the IWW--I have been a member since 1985, rescued Joe Hill's ashes from the National Archives in 1988, and help organize an IWW Branch in the UK from 1990 to 2000.
Fred Lee
________________________________
From: To complement the journal 'Capital and Class' (ISSN 0 309 8786) on behalf of Jerry Levy
Sent: Sun 11/19/2006 7:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 'Open-ness', the right to privacy, and the new Internet McCarthyism
John:
Again, I think you are not listening. You write that "contact
information" and the email addresses of CSE members
shouldn't be passed on to Fred Lee. But Fred ONLY asked
for a list which includes the "last name, first name
and country" of CSE members. Indeed, he has said that if he is
given ANYTHING more then it will be discarded. Furthermore,
he has said that ANY information given to him "stays with me
and is not sent to a third party".
One of the worst aspects of McCarthyism was that it resulted
in progressives (and everyone else!) fearing each other and
suspecting that the progressive or neighbor next door was not
who they claimed to be. PARANOIA feeds right into this dynamic:
indeed, its diffusion assures victory to the McCarthyites. If
CSE members fear what Fred Lee (an IWW member, if I
recall correctly) will do with the list he is given, then the
CSE may not be killed off by McCarthyites but by the paranoia
of its own members.
Jerry
|