I Frickin’ Love (being deeply ambivalent about) Science

This post is my attempt to sort out various ideas and arguments that have been rattling around my head for the past several weeks. As with so many similar posts, this is not an ATTACK on anyone. In fact, it isn’t even directed at one or two people in particular. (A couple of you may recognize yourself in some of the words below… thank you for helping me re-examine my ideas, and for forcing me to actually sit down and attempt to organize these thoughts into something more coherent than a brief Facebook comment…)

I guess it started when I dared to criticize the Almighty Lord and Saviour, Richard Dawkins.

Or maybe it started earlier, when I found out that I (apparently) HATE Science.

It had definitely started when I was told, in an only somewhat indirect way, that I had contributed to the deaths of MILLIONS OF BABIES in the developing world.

You see, I have opinions on the uses of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). These opinions have lead to some arguments and debates with a handful of individuals in my life, which in turn has introduced me to the exciting world of internet skeptics, rational atheists, pro-GMO pro-vacciners (apparently you’re required by law to view the two through the same lens), and others who Fucking Love Science. Read More

Citation Needed

I finally got around to starting danah boyd’s new book, “It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens”.
For those who don’t know danah (yes, the ‘d’ is deliberately lower-case. Just go with it), she’s a fantastic researcher who works with Harvard, Microsoft, NYU, and others. Unlike most people who write about ‘young people and the internet’, danah actually does RESEARCH. Yeah. I know. Crazy, right? I mean, all it takes to call yourself a ‘social media expert’ these days is a goddam twitter account (and/or amazing hair: see AOL’s ‘Shingy’…) So why bother doing ethnographic work for years, interviewing teens and reading relevant literature… that’s for suckers.

I like danah’s work. She’s connected to a group of researchers that has interested me for years – the DML (Digital Media and Learning) hub.

After years of working in the area of media literacy, I’m pretty tired of seeing media researchers with zero interest in education, and education researchers who don’t give a damn about media. Both groups will enthusiastically publish papers and books on media literacy, of course. But who can be bothered to learn the terrain in more than one field?

That’s why the DML folks have intrigued me. They seem to have one foot in each field, and their focus is on LEARNING, rather than just on teaching/instruction.

So I had very high hopes for danah’s book. And I do like it. It’s a really important read for many, many audiences. If you’re a parent, and you worry about young people using the internet, please read this book. It’s thorough, well-researched, and enjoyable to read.

If you’re an academic working in education or communication, please read this book. It’s a rare example of research with actual purpose (no offense to those of you working in academia, but seriously… how many books/papers do you read each year that really don’t matter in the slightest?) In this book, danah wants to help adults understand how young people actually USE social media, so that we can actually develop policy/curriculum/practice based on reality, rather than fear, prejudice, or ignorance.

All of that said, I do want to share a minor quibble I have with the book, which is really just a way to discuss a bigger pet peeve I have from my own dissertation work.

Over the past few years, I have encountered too many academic papers and books (with danah’s book being one of them) with citations/references that drive me nuts.

Let me be really clear here. I teach first-year students about academic research. That’s my job. I do it 3 semesters a year, 500+ students a year. I teach them how and why we cite our sources.

Moreover, I take citations seriously in my own work. The idea that one of the citations in my dissertation might be incorrect keeps me awake at night. Literally. I have literally stared at the ceiling at 4 in the morning worrying that my committee will come across a single incorrect citation and decide that maybe grad school was never truly ‘for me’…

So when I read an academic essay or book in my own research, and I come across a mistake (in a published work…) it drives me insane. How did this make it into print? Did someone not notice, or did someone not care? How come you get to have an illustrious career and still be so shitty at this simple thing? (I’m looking at YOU, Chomsky…)

A few months ago, I found an indirect quote I really liked. I wanted to read the original work, to get a bit more context and understanding. The source I had available to me didn’t even include the volume/issue of the original journal article. Thanks for that, asshole. Fine. I’ll look it up. Ok. Got the volume number, got the issue number. The article was on pages 1 through 16 of that issue.

So why the hell are you quoting this passage and saying it was on page 18?

Really. I know typos happen. They happen all the time. They are in this blog post, I’m sure.

But little details like this matter. If I can’t find your sources, I can’t verify your facts. That’s kind of how this system works.

In the opening chapter of danah’s new book, there’s a rather oblique reference to the fact that Socrates once mentioned a king who didn’t like writing.

Ok. I’m going to stop you right there.

I’ve worked in media literacy long enough to recognize a Neil Postman reference when I see one.

Sometimes it seems like everyone who works in this field has read Neil Postman, and far too many people actually like him.

The title of his biggest book was ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death’. That’s his attitude towards modern media. We are using them to Amuse Ourselves… to DEATH.

Postman spoke and wrote in breathless hyperbole. We was the quintessential old man yelling at the teenagers on his front lawn.

But he’s popular. His crappy books are on countless reading lists in communication and media studies courses. I get it.

Postman famously quotes Plato’s Phaedrus, in which King Thamus worries that the new invention of writing will make men more forgetful.

I teach this stupid reading every semester.

So I read a vague reference to Socrates and writing, and I think to myself, “another Postman reader. Oh well.” I flip to the notes at the back of the book to confirm my suspicion, and what do I see?

Not a Postman citation.

Not even Plato.

Nope. I see a link to a faculty member’s course website at the University of Illinois.

Now I’m really not trying to criticize danah boyd specifically here. It’s a great book. Go read it. She does fantastic research.

What upsets me is that this is standard operating procedure in academia.

You’re citing Plato. My assumption is that you’re doing so by way of Postman.

And all we get in the notes? A link to a PDF on someone’s course website.

(Side note: for anyone who works in and around universities, answer me this: How often does your university re-build the entirety of its web infrastructure? I’m guessing this link is broken within 24 months, tops.)

If you work in education, you should know how to cite.

If you publish academic work, or if you work for a publisher, you should really know how this stuff works.

Take the extra 5 minutes. Find the book. Double-check your citation. Then you can sleep soundly at night.

Haters Gonna Hate: Thoughts on Lanier’s “Who Owns The Future?”

Jaron Lanier’s new book came out last week, and if the reviews online are any indication, I may be the only person on the planet who actually READ the damn thing from cover to cover.

The Globe and Mail reviewer certainly didn’t.  Slate, Salonacademic blogs… you name it. It’s extremely easy to write a review if you only skim the first few pages. Reading is hard. Read More

Seth MacFarlane, The Onion, and the fine art of Mansplaining.

Yes, yes… it’s been a veeery long time since I’ve posted anything here.

Well, instead of simply writing about WHY I haven’t posted (major health issues, holidays, and an insane teaching load this semester), I’ll just dive right into the post-Oscar media frenzy. Read More

Shameless Hustle: Scenes Research CFP

Thought I’d share this here, as it’s something I’ve been involved with for a little while now…

For those interested in ‘scene’ as a research tool:

 

Call for Papers

Scene Again: Social Life, Research, and Cultural Studies – Special Issue intended for Cultural Studies Read More

More Eastern Book Learnin': What I Actually DO for a Living

Two posts in one day? Has he gone mad?

Here is a second paper that I presented in Kitchener-Waterloo last week. This one summarizes three empirical case studies and the methodological strands connecting them. I co-authored this paper with two colleagues, and I would encourage you to check out their work when you can.

Hopefully, there will be more work from this ongoing collaboration to post soon.

(Note: these are edited/modified versions of the papers presented at Congress 2012 in Kitchener-Waterloo. For full versions with reference lists, please feel free to contact me. Some content has been reserved for future publications.) Read More

Weather’s Good There in the Fall: On Alberta’s Near-Miss with the WRP

“Now the Irish have a saying, and in it truth will always ring… / 

Don’t matter who you vote for, you always end up with a king.”

          – The Rheostatics, ‘Bread, Meat, Peas & Rice’.

 

After an evening of (mild) relief and (even milder) surprise, I have a few comments on the Alberta provincial election.

For those who may not know my terrible secret… I’m an Albertan. I know… Me. Albertan. And here you thought I was so well behaved and hygienic.

Nope. I grew up in Calgary, and I still visit my parents each year at Christmas. I like to think I have some insight into the world of Albertan politics, having experienced The Crazy firsthand. So with that in mind, here are my thoughts on yet another Conservative majority… Read More

Living in the Future, Part 1

I’ll be the first to admit – when the iPad was first released, I made my fair share of jokes. Why on earth would I want an over-sized iPhone? Why would I want a laptop with no keyboard, no USB ports, and a hefty price tag?

And here I am… composing a blog post on a goddam iPad.

How did it come to this?

Well, I guess it started when my MacBook decided it no longer had a wireless card, a Bluetooth card, or even a power supply. A laptop is pretty useless when it won’t connect to … anything… and it flat-out dies after a few hours of use, never to work again.  Read More

Very Pinteresting… but Stupid?

A quick update, as it’s been a little while since I’ve posted anything here.

Rather than weigh in ONCE AGAIN on why I prefer Google+ to Facebook (‘ZOMG! New Privacy Policy! EVIL!’) I’d like to take a quick moment to ask a simple question:

If Pinterest is so silly and pointless and trivial… just what in the hell are you doing on the internet that’s so amazingly important?

Read More

Don’t Be Evil: Choosing Your Online Future

As I continue to head toward the full de-activation of one online account, I find myself suddenly having to ‘defend’ my use of another. With recent changes to its privacy policies, Google has somehow begun to flirt with ‘evil’, according to numerous online onlookers.

This post isn’t intended to praise everything Google does. Rather, I want to share some of the thinking that’s gone into (and continues to inform) my decisions with respect to social networking platforms. Privacy is, indeed, one of my major concerns. And I still think Google is the safer bet in the long run. Read More