[Air-l] Lurkers Wanted - Revisited

[Jeremy Hunsinger]

Umm,  i don't mean to be harsh, but your study was biased before you  
started.
you have an opt in study, which is biased
you asked for people who self identify, which is biased
your frame was skewed before you started, i don't see how it can be  
unbiased
you have nothing to compare it to that can be similar, which will not  
allow you to remove bias.
I'm not sure what you are really attempting to do other than to  
appear scientific and i find that problematic.

thus, from my reading of the statement below, the only effect this  
statement below then seems to have is to quash or silence discussion  
by labeling things as.  don't you see a problem with that?

the only jargon that i've seen in this so far is the general process  
bit.  the rest of the observations where equivalent to expert  
testimony from people in their respective fields, using common  
language, but by labeling it as possibly unmeritorious, and jargon- 
laden, you are at best dismissing  that expertise, and i wonder why?   
It seems like you were attacking people.  I'd like to know why you  
labeled expert knowledge could be without merit, and was jargon laden.

I do not understand your logic, it does not fit into any logic of  
social research that i've seen generally, nor seen pursued on the  
internet, so i'm again wondering why you think the statement below  
was necessary, and why following it, anyone would continue to  
participate in your study?  How does you statement below do anything  
but bias your study further?  I'm pretty sure that it makes me very  
skeptical about the whole construction of bias that you are using  
given the biases it states.



On May 12, 2007, at 11:26 AM, James Whyte wrote:

> I truly appreciate all the people who volunteered for this call.  
> However the posibility of an unbiased study has been compromised by  
> the continuing discussion on this list. IMHO, a collection of  
> anecdotal observations could have merit as a thought piece in the  
> general sense of an ethnography but it would not have the the  
> properties which would suggest general processes. I.e. the subjects  
> are also observers and informed by the discussion.
>
>   This is not a negative to me because the discussion has  
> interrogated the use of jargon in scholarly discourse.
>
>   Again I thank you for the offer. As scholars I know you  
> understand my logic.
>
>   If you are a volunteer and read this please write me off list and  
> let me know you read this. I want to make sure everyone get the word.
>
>   Regards,
>
>   James
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on  
> Yahoo! TV.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

jeremy hunsinger
Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research,  
School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee  
(www.cipr.uwm.edu)

wiki.tmttlt.com
www.tmttlt.com

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\                        - against microsoft attachments
http://www.stswiki.org/  sts wiki
http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/  Learning Inquiry-the journal
http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/  Transdisciplinary  
Studies:the book series