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.
|