Hi All,
sorry just a quick note and offer my option.
I 2nd Goran's comment about perhaps this is a PhD student/young
researcher starting a project and usually we are more knowledgeable than
our PIs...but if this is so it might be wise for us to know that the PI
has in fact OKed this project and it has gone through another set of
eyes than Michael and us. This is also so that we are aware that he has
some type of guidance.
In response to Aaron's options, which is good to outline these: I would
unfortunately vote for option 2 to delay the project?...Yes, it is
disappointing to Michael, but that is research and this might give him
the opportunity to really hone in the project. To do a bit more
background research and address a few of our concerns. And just a quick
question: he hasn't responded with who his PI is since Sept? It doesn't
sound like he is too much in an hurry...(or am I getting
projects/proposals mixed up?)
C
On 11/16/11 6:07 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
This is discussion is awesome. I'd like to
propose two options for
moving forward from this point:
1. Allow the study to continue and pick this issue up in parallel.
* Pro: We don't delay the study of a researcher who has been
waiting.
* Con: We set a precedent that future researchers would
(possibly) not be able to follow.
2. Delay this study until we can come to a general conclusion about
our requirements for this scale of recruitment
* Pro: We wait until approving anything until we have reached
a consensus of what projects should be approved.
* Con: Michael Tsikerdekis has to wait an undetermined amount of
time before continuing with his work.
I'd like to capture our deliberations in a more public forum. What do
you folks think about moving this discussion to the Wiki (whether it
is under this project proposal or not)?
-Aaron
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Goran Milovanovic
<goran.s.milovanovic(a)gmail.com <mailto:goran.s.milovanovic@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Well, when it comes to
"I would be happy to give my approval conditionally on having (at
least) the student's supervisor involved. I actually think this
would be a sensible rule to apply to *all* SR proposals submitted
by students."
I have to say I could not agree, and here is the reason: we may
stumble upon many academic environments where students, or PhD
candidates, or young researchers in general are in fact more
competent in specific areas of research then their supervisors. Of
course, this is not a common situation, but if we talk about
Internet related research, where new concepts, new ideas, and new
methods are introduced every now and then, we are talking about a
field where the above described asymmetry in competences is likely
to appear.
Personal experience: between 2002. and 2005. a research team that
I have led in Belgrade, Serbia, published four books on Internet
behavior, Internet usage, attitudes towards the Internet and
related topics, of which none were peer-reviewed in Serbia. Why?
They were all supported by standard methodological, theoretical
and statistical instruments of social sciences. Most of the team
members already had experience in publishing in peer-reviewed
journals or presented at recognized conferences. Simply, because
that were the first attempts to study anything related to Internet
and society in my country at all, and there were no peer reviewers
available. I am literary saying that back then we were to first to
try to crawl for the relevant literature and references at all.
What I want to add is that most researchers who are into Internet
related research are people who are into new ideas, looking for
conceptual breakthroughs and new theoretical frameworks. Limiting
their efforts by constrains related to the already bureaucratized
relations in academia could end up in actually enlarging the pile
of problems on the behalf of people who simply want to put their
new ideas to test. Wikipedia was developed by people who decided
to abandon the classical rules and try with something previously
unimaginable: who would say it work to become of the landmarks of
the Internet? I believe we should keep that spirit when it comes
to research as well.
"I hope it's clear that I don't want to shut down research for
anybody but top researchers with big grants, but we also cannot
afford spending time and effort and community attention for
projects of an unclear scientific value or interest."
I recognize the importance of the issue you're raising, but I do
not think the selection criterion you are proposing will help us
sort out the projects of clear from the projects of unclear value
or interest. I believe, in the spirit of good faith, that task
needs to remain with us completely, as well as with the members of
the scientific community who we might contact and ask for an
advice when we are not sure what to do about a particular project
proposal.
Best,
Goran
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Dario Taraborelli
<dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org>>
wrote:
ok, here's my dispassionate opinion. I post on the list
because the problems I refer to below are not specific to this
project but to many other requests.
We have been receiving a *lot* of SR requests from students
over the last few months and I think we should start deciding
more aggressively what research is likely to have an impact
and what research won't produce any major tangible results.
I really like the topic of the Anonymity and Conformity study
but I several concerns with the solidity of the current proposal:
. we will be approving for the first time some kind of
large-scale recruitment approach via user talk pages for a
student project: this is something we've never done before and
we should only do it if there's a good reason.
. the advisor of the proponent doesn't seem to be involved at
all in this project and is not even named in the proposal.
Aaron asked the proponent to share the name of his supervisor
in September, but he hasn't done so (yet?)
. the proponent says that no funding is supporting this
research and that this study is "conducted with the author's
own efforts"
. no one else other than the applicant will be implied in the
data collection and analysis and the proponent doesn't seem to
have an actual research record
. there is no trace in this proposal of an approval by an
ethics committee. The proponent says that this is not
applicable (and it's true that IRB policy is very different
between the US and other countries), but some official record
would help us assess the credibility of the proposal.
for these reasons, I am hesitant whether we should blindly
approve this request. I would be happy to give my approval
conditionally on having (at least) the student's supervisor
involved. I actually think this would be a sensible rule to
apply to *all* SR proposals submitted by students.
I hope it's clear that I don't want to shut down research for
anybody but top researchers with big grants, but we also
cannot afford spending time and effort and community attention
for projects of an unclear scientific value or interest.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this
Dario
On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I was hoping to close this poll hours
ago, but we only have
three members of RCom participating (thanks Yaroslav and
Steven!).
It is absolutely crucial that if we end up technically
approving this study methodology that such approval actually
reflects the consensus of RCom members.
For your benefit, I'll summarize the proposed plan:
A request to participate in a *survey* about enforcing
conformance with community/group outcomes *needs 200-300
responses* from general Wikipedia editors. Invitations
to take the survey will be posted an editors' User_talk
pages. *A pilot set of 15 requests will be posted
immediately* following approval from RCom to test for
problems and determine the expected response rate.
Afterwards, *up to 500 User_talk postings* will be made
(depending on response rate) to illicit enough responses
to give statistical confidence.
This is the first proposed project of this scale that we are
reviewing for approval so I really want to make sure we are
doing it right.
-Aaron
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Halfaker
<aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com <mailto:aaron.halfaker@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Hey folks,
This proposal is an important milestone for our subject
recruitment processes, since it represents the first mass
recruitment request (200-300 responses needed). I'm
hoping to either show a high level of support with this
poll or discover what problems still need to be dealt with.
I'd like to close the poll by *Wednesday @ noon UTC*.
Please make sure to chime in.
See poll:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Anonymity_and_conformity_over_…
-Aaron
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Truth is much too complicated to allow
anything but approximations."
:: John von Neumann
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.milovanovicresearch.com
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l