[Air-l] levels of jargon

[Caroline Haythornthwaite]

What's also interesting is the assumption by those working with statistics that 
no one outside the field will know the terms, but not the mirror of that from the 
other side -- e.g., with 'performativity' which is certainly an in-group term.

For instance, when the OED has this kind of definition, (which is noted as a draft 
entry from Dec. 2005), I think we need help!  

Performativity, n

The fact or quality of being performative (cf. PERFORMATIVE adj.). Also: the fact 
or quality of performing.

1970 Language 46 161 How are performative verbs represented in underlying 
structure: Is performativity a presupposition, a predicate PERFORM, a qualifier, 
or what? 1982 Jrnl. Philos. 79 168 The meaning of sentences with performative 
prefixes..includes a peculiarly semantic kind of performativity. 1995 Times Lit. 
Suppl. 24 Nov. 25/4 ‘Performativity’ is the guiding administrative principle, 
imposed on faculty members.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:05:20 -0000
>From: "O'Riordan, Kate" <k.oriordan at lancaster.ac.uk>  
>Subject: Re: [Air-l] levels of jargon  
>To: <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
>
>This is really interesting - I agree the jargon/not jargon issue is a real 
challenge possibly particular to those of trained in academic writing (although I 
am sure there are other arenas where it is an issue). 
>
>I am intrigued as to how this plays out though – the challenge of 
interdisciplinary and multiple languages, is I think creative and productive.   I 
would agree with that we might all know what IM, CMC or CSCW are - I would 
still think it polite in writing a document to put all short hands in full in the first 
time of use or at least in a foot note – although not on this list serv. 
>
>I have no idea what regression coefficients or significance tests are but I would 
have made the opposite guess that "performativity" was a common term across 
the social sciences.   At the same time the hypothetical scenario with partners 
makes no sense to me at all! 
>
>(And of course, OTOH is a jargon term I assume is
>commonly understood.) 
>
>- Again not for me although - as with the above - I could make a guess or 
look it up - something I would expect to have to do at some point in most 
reading.
>
>I’d also observe that the McGyver reference is not only to do with age 
considerations, and certainly TV is infinitely re-runnable, but it does seem also 
to be a very nationally specific reference which would be obscure in many 
national contexts. 
>
>The thing that really interests me about all this (and why I have found it 
interesting to reflect on how my interpretation differs) - is the productive 
tension – in that I think any attempt to categorise what is  jargon/not jargon has 
some kind of politics  of normalisation i.e. what is acceptable and for whom.  At 
the same time it is a useful and necessary exercise.  
>
>I would imagine that this would be seen differently by almost everyone on the 
list – I would also imagine that we might all have different points of difference 
and agreement with this categorisation (and any other) and that seems to me to 
be part of the creative challenge of this kind of network.  I wonder if it would be 
possible to refine guidelines of this kind to meet a general consensus in this 
context or if we would always have too many exception clauses?
>
>Many thanks, all the best
>Kate O’Riordan
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/
listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
>Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
>http://www.aoir.org/

----------------------------------------
Caroline Haythornthwaite
Associate Professor
Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820