<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The long rambly update&#8230; April 09 edition!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://markdangerchen.net/2009/04/19/the-long-rambly-update-april-09-edition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://markdangerchen.net/2009/04/19/the-long-rambly-update-april-09-edition/</link>
	<description>sporadic ramblings of a gamer in academia</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:26:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: markdangerchen</title>
		<link>http://markdangerchen.net/2009/04/19/the-long-rambly-update-april-09-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-2796</link>
		<dc:creator>markdangerchen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://markdangerchen.net/?p=1237#comment-2796</guid>
		<description>I think some of them do that type of work, actually. It&#039;s a conglomeration of Comm, New Media, Science &amp; Tech Studies, Library &amp; Info Sciences, Education, Sociology, Anthropology, Computer Science, Infomatics, and Tech Comm... But you&#039;re right, the &quot;Internet&quot; bit is quite a vague catchall... Most don&#039;t do ethnography, though, that is, of course, what I do.

And statistical models *more* fundamental? For what? They can give a very gross approximations of phenomenon and are useful for seeing trends and such, but they can&#039;t possibly speak about actual meaningful activity on the ground level. I rather think multidisciplinary and multimethods by a multitude of people is the only way we&#039;ll get a clear(er) picture of what&#039;s happening.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think some of them do that type of work, actually. It&#8217;s a conglomeration of Comm, New Media, Science &#038; Tech Studies, Library &#038; Info Sciences, Education, Sociology, Anthropology, Computer Science, Infomatics, and Tech Comm&#8230; But you&#8217;re right, the &#8220;Internet&#8221; bit is quite a vague catchall&#8230; Most don&#8217;t do ethnography, though, that is, of course, what I do.</p>
<p>And statistical models *more* fundamental? For what? They can give a very gross approximations of phenomenon and are useful for seeing trends and such, but they can&#8217;t possibly speak about actual meaningful activity on the ground level. I rather think multidisciplinary and multimethods by a multitude of people is the only way we&#8217;ll get a clear(er) picture of what&#8217;s happening.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://markdangerchen.net/2009/04/19/the-long-rambly-update-april-09-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-2795</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:10:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://markdangerchen.net/?p=1237#comment-2795</guid>
		<description>These conference names like &quot;Internet Researchers&quot; seem so pretentious to me, as if ethnographic study is the apex of understanding the Internet.  What about study of networking protocols and statistical models of social networks (a la Jon Kleinberg)... all of which seems much more fundamental.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These conference names like &#8220;Internet Researchers&#8221; seem so pretentious to me, as if ethnographic study is the apex of understanding the Internet.  What about study of networking protocols and statistical models of social networks (a la Jon Kleinberg)&#8230; all of which seems much more fundamental.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
