[Air-L] Help
Guiquan Xu
guiquan.xu at vub.ac.be
Sat Jul 28 15:21:35 PDT 2012
Hello. Could you help me unsubscribe the mailing list? Thanks!
>Send Air-L mailing list submissions to
> air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> air-l-request at listserv.aoir.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> air-l-owner at listserv.aoir.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Air-L digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. social change? (Andr? Brock)
> 2. substantive solutions -- Re: Criteria for proving that online
> data (especially forumcomments) are real? (Michael Scarce)
> 3. verifying internet content --- Re: Criteria for proving that
> online data (especially forum comments) are real? (Michael Scarce)
> 4. (link to) verifying internet content --- Re: Criteria for
> proving that online data (especially forum comments) are real?
> (Michael Scarce)
> 5. Re: social change? (John McNutt)
> 6. Re: social change? (Andr? Brock)
> 7. Re: social change? (Radhika)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:42:32 -0500
>From: Andr? Brock <andre.brock at gmail.com>
>To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>Subject: [Air-L] social change?
>Message-ID:
> <CACTG5woCXbNms2C-Bt7qwWa5EAA5t72aPMV4D6nPRSAKdjWVgQ at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>via Radhika:
>
> I find many usability surveys that test for how the interface is usable or
> not - but they dont necessarily test for the effectiveness of content in
> relation to conveying the social change and advocacy part ?
>
>This describes information science in a nutshell. Can i steal?
>
>Andr?
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 04:33:32 -0700
>From: Michael Scarce <scarce at mac.com>
>To: Air-L at listserv.aoir.org
>Subject: [Air-L] substantive solutions -- Re: Criteria for proving
> that online data (especially forumcomments) are real?
>Message-ID: <40A745DB-ACCA-4EA4-909D-B263C807083E at mac.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
>I was pleased to see this question posed to the group. I've been doing research utilizing a web-based national survey, offering a $25 Amazon.com electronic gift code upon completion. The only identifying information respondents are asked to actively provide us is their email address for receipt of the code. We do not use "panels" of participants. We do not screen them by telephone. We do not have prior email exchanges with assignment of unique ID codes.
>
>I completed what I believe to be an overly exhaustive lit review, contacted others around the country doing similar work, etc. I continue to hear of researchers landing big grants after throwing around Facebook/Twitter-like buzz language, they collect data, and then cannot publish their results and analyses because journal editors now ask, "How can you explain that you were able to establish the 'uniqueness' of each respondent as an individual rather than a repeat responder?" In other words, can you validate your data as being a sample of 100 individuals versus one person who responded 100 times with junk data?
>
>We learned the web survey service to which we subscribe has the ability to gather a number of what I call "paradata" about the survey site visitors.
>
>I revised the welcome page of the survey to include a privacy statement informing the research subject that if they continue with the survey by proceeding to the next page, their IP address, GeoIP information, web browser UserAgent string, site referrer, etc. will be collected.
>
>After the survey's initial screening questions, if the respondent qualifies, they are presented with an electronic informed consent document. The consent form explains in very basic language that anyone who access the survey by altering their internet connection in any way that might obscure or misrepresent their online presence will be deemed ineligible. We went several rounds with this back and forth with our IRB on this. In the end, they were quite pleased and have begun referring other researchers my way who struggle with similar issues.
>
>Our primary problem was this: the web survey could block duplicate respondents based on IP address as well as using cookies. However, we were taken aback at the huge number of proxy users --- some individuals took the survey over 30 times in less than a day, providing 30 different email addresses!
>
>After implementing the privacy page and revising the consent form, I created an algorithm for weeding out the vast majority of proxy users, in addition to people who know they can simply unplug their cable modem for a few hours, plug it back in, and be re-assigned a new dynamic IP from their ISP. Aside from the high prevalence of "cheaters," I found a wide range of sophistication and motivations behind the techniques people used. For example, there is "marketing" (aka spam) software that can auto-generate a few dozen free email accounts with the press of a button, even configuring them all to forward to the same address, and each of them sounding reasonably realistic like "johndoe631 at gmail.com." There are web sites selling subscriptions to "professional survey takers." The customer subscribes, and the web site gives them a list of surveys scraped from search engines, offering some kind of reward or incentive. I believe one of the sites was something like "swagbucks.com."
>
>I've written an article that serves as a methods paper to describe and outline this process of eliminating false data, validating research subjects, and study design that allows for the ability to ethically disqualify those who complete surveys over and over. It had the potential to drain our study's budget and leave us with nothing we could use., I included a case study of how we worked with our IRB in responding to someone who actually complained and demanded their incentive after taking the survey 15 times. It's a tricky game, substantiating their ineligibility and deception without teaching them how they were detected and prompting them to find other security vulnerabilities. The article focuses on the more technical aspects of the process, judgment calls, and the algorithm --- not just a simple statistical formula. In summary, I suggest Internet researchers must begin to think like hackers, which I happen to be. In the process of polishing the paper to submit for public
> ation, I'm struggling with what journals I want to target. The survey itself is related to HIV and cancer, so I could go that route, something methodological, or techie, or more obscure like "The Journal of Medical Internet Research," and so on.
>
>I'm working on a second paper that addresses the many ethical aspects and considerations for collecting data from Internet research subjects, sometimes without their knowledge or consent, for purposes of data validity. For example, IP addresses are among the list of HIPAA-defined identifiers of personal health information.
>
>Any suggestions for publication submission, or how to better frame the piece within a particular discipline or field of study, would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>- Michael Scarce
>
>_________________________________
>Michael Scarce
>Michael.Scarce at ucsf.edu
>Research Specialist
>UCSF Division of Infectious Diseases /
>Center for AIDS Prevention Studies
>50 Beale Street, Suite 1300
>San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> phone (415) 597-4979
> fax (415) 597-9213
>
>
>On Jul 26, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Marj Kibby wrote:
>
>> Is there additional onus of proof for web based material? How do you prove that survey responses are real, that notes from interviews are real ....
>>
>> The verification is in how you frame the project and write up the results.
>>
>> Marj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Associate Professor Marjorie Kibby, B.Ed, M.A, Ph.D, FHERDSA
>> Director, Student Experience FEDUA
>> Head of Discipline: Film, Media and Cultural Studies
>> School of Humanities and Social Science
>> The University of Newcastle Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia
>> Marj.Kibby at newcastle.edu.au
>> +61 2 49216604
>>>>> Maria Eronen <m85327 at student.uwasa.fi> 27/07/12 6:24 AM >>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Would anyone know what are the criteria concerning internet material's
>> validity? Is it common that you as a researcher will be asked to prove
>> that the material you have collected from the internet is real. Since
>> a lot of internet data disappears everyday, mere url addresses are not
>> enough. Even html files can be modified after saving webpages.
>>
>> I would appreciate if someone had time to answer.
>>
>> Maria
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 04:52:21 -0700
>From: Michael Scarce <scarce at mac.com>
>To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>Subject: [Air-L] verifying internet content --- Re: Criteria for
> proving that online data (especially forum comments) are real?
>Message-ID: <FF035FE3-C0E6-41E0-B5F7-D1477350797B at mac.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
>Maybe you're already familiar with these, but try the following:
>http://www.kfinder.com/newweb/Publishers/MedCite/MedCite.html#CiteVerify
>
>It appears that MedCite might have gone under, but it was a wonderful and free service for researchers. You could simply enter the URL of the web content you wanted to reference, MedCite would actually archive and store the content, and then issue a kind of doc ID to be used in your reference citation, making it easy for others to access that same stored content.
>
>In lieu of that, try the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine." at http://www.archive.org
>
>Because Internet content is so dynamic and constantly disappearing, I have relied on the Wayback Machine heavily to access sites and information that have been long gone for more than a decade.
>
>If other utilize different methods for this sort of thing, please share.
>
>Michael Scarce
>
>
>_________________________________
>Michael Scarce
>Michael.Scarce at ucsf.edu
>
>Research Specialist
>UCSF Division of Infectious Diseases /
>Center for AIDS Prevention Studies
>50 Beale Street, Suite 1300
>San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> phone (415) 597-4979
> fax (415) 597-9213
>
>On Jul 26, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Maria Eronen wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Would anyone know what are the criteria concerning internet material's validity? Is it common that you as a researcher will be asked to prove that the material you have collected from the internet is real. Since a lot of internet data disappears everyday, mere url addresses are not enough. Even html files can be modified after saving webpages.
>>
>> I would appreciate if someone had time to answer.
>>
>> Maria
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 05:10:06 -0700
>From: Michael Scarce <scarce at mac.com>
>To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>Subject: [Air-L] (link to) verifying internet content --- Re: Criteria
> for proving that online data (especially forum comments) are real?
>Message-ID: <0584595C-C830-4DDB-9A24-378415AC508E at mac.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Here is the service:
>
>http://www.webcitation.org
>
>Description from the site:
>
>The Problem
>Authors increasingly cite webpages and other digital objects on the Internet, which can "disappear" overnight. In one study published in the journal Science, 13% of Internet references in scholarly articles were inactive after only 27 months. Another problem is that cited webpages may change, so that readers see something different than what the citing author saw. The problem of unstable webcitations and the lack of routine digital preservation of cited digital objects has been referred to as an issue "calling for an immediate response" by publishers and authors [1].
>
>An increasing number of editors and publishers ask that authors, when they cite a webpage, make a local copy of the cited webpage/webmaterial, and archive the cited URL in a system like WebCite?, to enable readers permanent access to the cited material.
>
>What is WebCite??
>WebCite?, which used to be a member of member of the International Internet Preservation Consortium, is an on-demand archiving system for webreferences (cited webpages and websites, or other kinds of Internet-accessible digital objects), which can be used by authors, editors, and publishers of scholarly papers and books, to ensure that cited webmaterial will remain available to readers in the future. If cited webreferences in journal articles, books etc. are not archived, future readers may encounter a "404 File Not Found" error when clicking on a cited URL. Try it! Archive a URL here. It's free and takes only 30 seconds.
>
>A WebCite?-enhanced reference is a reference which contains - in addition to the original live URL (which can and probably will disappear in the future, or its content may change) - a link to an archived copy of the material, exactly as the citing author saw it when he accessed the cited material.
>
>
>On Jul 28, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Michael Scarce wrote:
>
>> Maybe you're already familiar with these, but try the following:
>> http://www.kfinder.com/newweb/Publishers/MedCite/MedCite.html#CiteVerify
>>
>> It appears that MedCite might have gone under, but it was a wonderful and free service for researchers. You could simply enter the URL of the web content you wanted to reference, MedCite would actually archive and store the content, and then issue a kind of doc ID to be used in your reference citation, making it easy for others to access that same stored content.
>>
>> In lieu of that, try the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine." at http://www.archive.org
>>
>> Because Internet content is so dynamic and constantly disappearing, I have relied on the Wayback Machine heavily to access sites and information that have been long gone for more than a decade.
>>
>> If other utilize different methods for this sort of thing, please share.
>>
>> Michael Scarce
>>
>>
>> _________________________________
>> Michael Scarce
>> Michael.Scarce at ucsf.edu
>>
>> Research Specialist
>> UCSF Division of Infectious Diseases /
>> Center for AIDS Prevention Studies
>> 50 Beale Street, Suite 1300
>> San Francisco, CA 94105
>>
>> phone (415) 597-4979
>> fax (415) 597-9213
>>
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Maria Eronen wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Would anyone know what are the criteria concerning internet material's validity? Is it common that you as a researcher will be asked to prove that the material you have collected from the internet is real. Since a lot of internet data disappears everyday, mere url addresses are not enough. Even html files can be modified after saving webpages.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate if someone had time to answer.
>>>
>>> Maria
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:46:47 -0400
>From: "John McNutt" <mcnuttjg at netzero.com>
>To: <andre.brock at gmail.com>, <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
>Subject: Re: [Air-L] social change?
>Message-ID: <003c01cd6ccf$d092e3d0$71b8ab70$@netzero.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>I think the problem is that measuring the effectiveness of social change
>techniques, especially in the political arena (this is about advocacy,
>right?), isn't all that easy. The link between technique > Application >
>result is full of confounding variables and alternative possibilities. It
>is easy to see when something happens, much more work to substantiate the
>cause.
>
>John
>
>
>
>John G. McNutt, Professor
>University of Delaware
>School of Public Policy and Administration
>Coordinator, MPA Nonprofit Concentration
>Newark, DE 19716
>Voice:? 302.831.0765
>Fax 302.831.4425
>mcnuttjg at udel.edu
>
>UD Experts http://udapps.nss.udel.edu/experts/17480775379-John_G_McNutt
>Be ashamed to die until you've won some victory for humanity-Horace Mann
>Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pitiful that it has
>to be us. Jerry Garcia
>?
>****************************************************************************
>***********
>?
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
>[mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Andr? Brock
>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 6:43 PM
>To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>Subject: [Air-L] social change?
>
>via Radhika:
>
> I find many usability surveys that test for how the interface is usable
>or
> not - but they dont necessarily test for the effectiveness of content
>in
> relation to conveying the social change and advocacy part ?
>
>This describes information science in a nutshell. Can i steal?
>
>Andr?
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:50:57 -0500
>From: Andr? Brock <andre.brock at gmail.com>
>To: John McNutt <mcnuttjg at netzero.com>
>Cc: "air-l at listserv.aoir.org" <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
>Subject: Re: [Air-L] social change?
>Message-ID:
> <CACTG5woHX=hMFUf+xOUbEikUGi9vHxfZHCQVr4jnxd74AB547Q at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>I agree that measuring social change over the short term - in any
>discipline - is difficult. My issue, however, is that much of the
>measuring is done ere an assessment/evaluation schema is ever applied. Why
>do we (and I include myself) uncritically assume that information and The
>Digital* are transformative when it comes to underrepresented groups? I
>know firsthand of the difficulty; particularly when many of the underserved
> are vehemently technologically determinist themselves...how do you argue
>with someone's belief about their own community?
>
>Just once I'd lke to see some research on how The Digital* shaped the
>political behaviors of wealthy donors to a GOP Super PAC. I bet we'd see a
>multivariate, critical analysis of ALL the information behaviors they
>brought to the table, rather than a blanket assumption that The Digital*
>changed them.
>
>/end rant.
>
>Andr?
>__________________________
>* "The Digital" (see 'The Sugar' as a Black euphemism for diabetes) refers
>to ICTs, their content, protocols, practices, users, designers, AND
>beliefs. You're welcome.
>
>
>On Saturday, July 28, 2012, John McNutt wrote:
>
>> I think the problem is that measuring the effectiveness of social change
>> techniques, especially in the political arena (this is about advocacy,
>> right?), isn't all that easy. The link between technique > Application >
>> result is full of confounding variables and alternative possibilities. It
>> is easy to see when something happens, much more work to substantiate the
>> cause.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> John G. McNutt, Professor
>> University of Delaware
>> School of Public Policy and Administration
>> Coordinator, MPA Nonprofit Concentration
>> Newark, DE 19716
>> Voice: 302.831.0765
>> Fax 302.831.4425
>> mcnuttjg at udel.edu <javascript:;>
>>
>> UD Experts http://udapps.nss.udel.edu/experts/17480775379-John_G_McNutt
>> Be ashamed to die until you've won some victory for humanity-Horace Mann
>> Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pitiful that it has
>> to be us. Jerry Garcia
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************
>> ***********
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org <javascript:;>
>> [mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of
>> Andr? Brock
>> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 6:43 PM
>> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org <javascript:;>
>> Subject: [Air-L] social change?
>>
>> via Radhika:
>>
>> I find many usability surveys that test for how the interface is
>> usable
>> or
>> not - but they dont necessarily test for the effectiveness of content
>> in
>> relation to conveying the social change and advocacy part ?
>>
>> This describes information science in a nutshell. Can i steal?
>>
>> Andr?
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org <javascript:;> 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/
>>
>>
>
>--
>Andre Brock
>Assistant Professor - Library and Information Science/POROI
>University of Iowa
>Iowa City, IA 52242
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:13:55 -0400
>From: Radhika <cyborgwati at gmail.com>
>To: "andre.brock at gmail.com" <andre.brock at gmail.com>
>Cc: "air-l at listserv.aoir.org" <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
>Subject: Re: [Air-L] social change?
>Message-ID: <2A28399F-9A10-43D3-9A90-B926DC25F88E at gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>Andre,
>
>I couldn't have said it better
>
>My question about he effectiveness of social advocacy campaigns online was not based in an assumption that the campaigns in themselves are beyond reproach. The assumptions behind these campaigns must be critically examined.
>
>
>Because technology design is a product of situated values....we get to be tech deterministic.
>
>Because "technology" does not exist "objectively" out there.. .. We do attribute bad or good effects from it.
>
>This form of tech determinism is the form revealed when we approach the study from within communities that feel forced into adopting any kind of technology, because if they don't adopt it, they are told they will be "left behind".
>
>Users from positions of lesser power in global hierarchies cannot afford not to be technologically deterministic.
>
>R
>
>On Jul 28, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Andr? Brock <andre.brock at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that measuring social change over the short term - in any
>> discipline - is difficult. My issue, however, is that much of the
>> measuring is done ere an assessment/evaluation schema is ever applied. Why
>> do we (and I include myself) uncritically assume that information and The
>> Digital* are transformative when it comes to underrepresented groups? I
>> know firsthand of the difficulty; particularly when many of the underserved
>> are vehemently technologically determinist themselves...how do you argue
>> with someone's belief about their own community?
>>
>> Just once I'd lke to see some research on how The Digital* shaped the
>> political behaviors of wealthy donors to a GOP Super PAC. I bet we'd see a
>> multivariate, critical analysis of ALL the information behaviors they
>> brought to the table, rather than a blanket assumption that The Digital*
>> changed them.
>>
>> /end rant.
>>
>> Andr?
>> __________________________
>> * "The Digital" (see 'The Sugar' as a Black euphemism for diabetes) refers
>> to ICTs, their content, protocols, practices, users, designers, AND
>> beliefs. You're welcome.
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, July 28, 2012, John McNutt wrote:
>>
>>> I think the problem is that measuring the effectiveness of social change
>>> techniques, especially in the political arena (this is about advocacy,
>>> right?), isn't all that easy. The link between technique > Application >
>>> result is full of confounding variables and alternative possibilities. It
>>> is easy to see when something happens, much more work to substantiate the
>>> cause.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John G. McNutt, Professor
>>> University of Delaware
>>> School of Public Policy and Administration
>>> Coordinator, MPA Nonprofit Concentration
>>> Newark, DE 19716
>>> Voice: 302.831.0765
>>> Fax 302.831.4425
>>> mcnuttjg at udel.edu <javascript:;>
>>>
>>> UD Experts http://udapps.nss.udel.edu/experts/17480775379-John_G_McNutt
>>> Be ashamed to die until you've won some victory for humanity-Horace Mann
>>> Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pitiful that it has
>>> to be us. Jerry Garcia
>>>
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************
>>> ***********
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org <javascript:;>
>>> [mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of
>>> Andr? Brock
>>> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 6:43 PM
>>> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org <javascript:;>
>>> Subject: [Air-L] social change?
>>>
>>> via Radhika:
>>>
>>> I find many usability surveys that test for how the interface is
>>> usable
>>> or
>>> not - but they dont necessarily test for the effectiveness of content
>>> in
>>> relation to conveying the social change and advocacy part ?
>>>
>>> This describes information science in a nutshell. Can i steal?
>>>
>>> Andr?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org <javascript:;> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Andre Brock
>> Assistant Professor - Library and Information Science/POROI
>> University of Iowa
>> Iowa City, IA 52242
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>
>End of Air-L Digest, Vol 96, Issue 33
>*************************************
>
>
More information about the Air-L
mailing list