[Air-L] Fwd: danah's response - Graduate programs for Internet studies

[André Brock]

This response has taken a long time to generate because i didn't want to
offend anyone.  At some point, tho, you have to say 'f*ck it' and go for
what you know.   Before i do get started, however, let me point out that i'm
not ranting at Jeremy, even tho i'm responding to his reply.



On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jeremy hunsinger <jeremy at tmttlt.com> wrote:

> I don't think this is really fair... 'haters gonna hate'
>
>
i don't understand why 'haters gonna hate' isn't fair.  Please show me where
people are addressing danah's work by generating work of THEIR OWN that's
critical of her methods, data, or theoretical approach.  That's the only
substantive criteria i'm prepared to accept.

You don't like that danah went to berkeley and you didn't?  that's hating.
 you don't like that Judith Donath was her mentor and not yours?  that's
hating.  you don't like that danah's worked for yahoo and microsoft and
you're still struggling to get your department to recognize that Internet
Studies is a viable PhD topic?  that's hating.   Let's not even get into the
ad hominem criticisms about danah, cuz those are out there too and often
used as justifications to decertify her work.

*yeah, i said it.*

Moreover, let's not pretend that criticisms of danah's work don't stem from
some deep-seated resistance to research on youth, gendered, and raced
technology users.  i've dealt with enough sub-rosa comments (and blind peer
reviews!) about my own intellectual endeavors to understand that in many
ways, this field reproduces mainstream, masculinist, patriarchal, raced,
sexed, gendered, and technocultural ideologies.   That makes us just like
other fields, so i'm not complaining - just pointing out something that
seems to be forgotten on this list from time to time.

Which brings me to my second (and last) point:


> I think it is fair to recognize that many of us in this field have been
> extraordinarily lucky, benefited immensely by the opportunities we could
> take that others could not.
>

It ain't luck.  The PhD is not a lottery ticket.  In many cases, you chose
your school...you chose your courses...you chose your topic...you chose a
life of poverty LOL.

The PhD is not promised to you; it doesn't always go to the smartest or the
nicest.  In my short-lived experience, i have begun to understand that the
granting of the PhD (and gaining tenure) rests almost as much on your
cultural and social connections as it does the intellectual acumen you have
on hand.  i'll leave that for further discussion at a later time.

*stepping off soapbox*

My advice for minorities (and lower income folk) interested in pursuing a
PhD in (insert discipline)/Internet Studies - go for the money FIRST, then
go to a place where a faculty member has agreed to work with you.  Finding a
 minority faculty member in LIS to work with is like finding hen's teeth;
ain't many of us out here and a lot of us are service-overcommitted.  Get to
know non-POC faculty who are interested in you as a person, not as an
ethnicity or oddity.  Those people, if their interests match, will help you
develop a research agenda.  If they don't match, they'll help you find
someone who does - and recommend you to them.

 Generalizing from my own experiences (YMMV), you might find a faculty
member to work with, but if they're not able to hook you up with their own
funding, you're dependent upon the department's largesse.  In this day and
age, many programs are saying the PhD can be completed in 4 years, but some
will not commit to fully funding a student for those 4 years.  Get your
funding straight...then use networking (institutional and extracurricular),
the Internet, and conferences to meet people who are willing to help you
develop your ideas into research.

That's what i got.




-- 
Andre Brock
Assistant Professor - Library and Information Science/POROI
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242