On Tuesday, April 04, 2000 9:16 PM, Nate [SMTP:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I agree strongly with your statement about "passive consent". I think
any
> material used from one's message should have an explicit asking for
> permission. I was uncomfortable with the initial "passive consent" out of
> the context Eva mentioned.
>
>
> I guess I feel it should be considered no different than seeking
permission
> / consent for any "site" one would do research in. First, one would seek
> permission to have acess to the site (passive consent"), and then
permission
> would be sought (explicitly) from specific individuals whose discourse
will
> be used as part of the research. I am not comfortable with what I saw
Bruce
> hinting at, "having a right to reply", because that would change the
whole
> context. I think it should be a flat yes/no question although I agree
with
> Bruce more details might be useful in allowing one to make a yes/no
> decision.
That wasn't what I meant - perhaps it wasn't clear. I meant that I was
giving an unconditional 'Yes' and obviously not demanding a right to reply
in the paper to whatever Judy wrote. What I said was that 'The only
ultimate guarantee against being misquoted is having a right to reply', by
which what I meant was that if I disagreed with how she interpreted what I
had said I would say why. I wasn't seeking to exercise any right of veto on
what she wrote in advance of its publication.
Bruce
>
> What I was reacting to in your message was, "please let me know if it is
ok
> for me to use this
> material in the way I have" which seemed too far. I think we,
researchers,
> have a responsibility to be straight forward about what the research
> entails, but not seeking consent for how we analyze, interpret, or frame
> that research.
>
> Nate
>
>
>
>
>
> Nate Schmolze
> http://www.geocities.com/nate_schmolze/
> schmolze@students.wisc.edu
>
>
> **********************************************************************
******
> ****************
> "Overcoming the naturalistic concept of mental development calls for a
> radically new approach
> to the interrelation between child and society. We have been led to this
> conclusion by a
> special investigation of the historical emergence of role-playing. In
> contrast to the view
> that role playing is an eternal extra-historical phenomenon, we
hypothesized
> that role playing emerged at a specific stage of social development, as
the
> child's position in society changed
> in the course of history. role-playing is an activity that is social in
> origin and,
> consequently, social in content."
>
> D. B. El'konin
>
************************************************************************
****
> ****************
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 10:07 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: how far?
>
>
>
> Hi Nate and all--
>
> Judy asked and I willingly gave permission to cite whatever of my stuff
> she wants. My main concern is to avoide "passive consent" procedures
> where a non-response is equated with acquiescence. I am also very
concerned
> not to give people any cause for concern about having what they write
> placed in a context they find objectionable.
>
> If I overstated my concern, i misspoke.
> mike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:12 PDT