Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0: Social Not Working? forum: topic
This is a public forum
Scientists who blog
Maya Kennard
Saturday, 28 February 2009 15:22 UTC
In my opinion, most of the scientists who blog fall into one or more of the following categories:
1. Science journalists
2. Ex-scientists
3. Failing Scientists
4. Scientists with Journalism aspirations
5. Students
6. Postdocs
Do you agree? Is there a poll on this?
What I think is very few good scientsts (0.01%) engage in blogging activity. Real good (working) scientists have more pressing issues to think about (like how Wnt-mediated repression of nox1 through trimethylacetylation of hitone lysine tails..), there is no way they can squeeze themselves into blogging.
BTW, this by no means is an attempt at putting down those who blog, or to convey that the people who fall into any of the above categories are any lesser than working – good scientists. So, let us discuss beyond that.
Updated 28 February 2009 15:45 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
like how Wnt-mediated repression of nox1 through trimethylacetylation of hitone lysine tails…
Is that unpublished data?
-
Hi Egon. I can’t say that I fit into any of those categories, since I am not a scientist. I maintain a blog because I have strong opinions, which I share self-indulgently. I have never taken a “sociological research class”. But I read about social neuroscience. Does that count?
-
I’m not a student or postdoc…that’s over 20 years ago for me. I don’t aspire to journalism…but have been approached and asked to entertain that. I don’t see myself as a failing scientist with 100 peer-reviewed publications, a book, etc. I am not in a lab anymore as I work from my home office but I consider myself a scientist still. I can see that many of your judgments do fit the community but they are certainly not all-inclusive.
-
Maya, I find it somewhat off-putting that you offer a list of reasons, ask your readers to agree or disagree with the list, then also request that they disregard the list to “discuss beyond that.” What, then, is the purpose of the list? Assuming you actually wanted readers’ responses, what kind of information are you really looking for?
Personally, I find categorizing science-oriented bloggers into types-of-anything a non-useful pursuit. Since the process of composing itself changes the writer’s relationship to the material and with the final product (for a peer-reviewed and entirely lovely exploration of this, see here ) , a taxonomic approach doesn’t fit the activity — even a folk taxonomy isn’t particularly illuminating. A better research approach at this point would employ a qualitative design and focus on development/transformation, probably examining the “place” blogging as a literacy practice has in the lives of bloggers and blog readers (difficult to separate these as blogging is usually a form of publication).
-
Thank you for your detailed response, Mickey. I take all my opposition back :-)
I don’t know. I was not posting a poll. Obviously, a poll would not ask whether you would classify yourself as a failing scientist :-). But something on that lines. I think all other categories are safe! Failing scientist would be something like number of peer-reviewed publications in last five years/how many years you have been a scientist. Or an even more complicated equation derived from 4-5 questions to this point.
When I say scientists being pushed, I did not mean some organizational effort with consequences, just the way various blogs, editorials are pushing this web 2.0 blogging enterprise. That may make some scientsts who don’t blog feel out of vogue. Which it is not.
-
Maya, you offer, at the outset, opinion with some probable merit. Although, I would also seek a clarification on your criteria for classifying ‘Failing scientists’. If you mean those without tenure, then most scientists end up ‘failing.’ This may be offensive to some, but I’d argue that shouldn’t stop you making your point (although, it is unclear what your point is as you subsequently seemingly contradict yourself). The omissions from your list are the tenured, are they not?
Do the ‘good (working) scientists’ have no hobbies, pastimes or interests outside of ‘Wnt-mediated repression of nox1…’ or suchlike? If not, then they’re welcome to it. Hats off to the tenured who blog!
-
Mickey, thanks for the link to that paper on writing, I just downloaded it now.
-
Wow, I need to get out more. By which, I mean, I need to stay in more (and read blogs etc.). This might help:
Title: On the Duty of Not Taking Offence
Authors: Barrow, Robin
Source: Journal of Moral Education, v34 n3 p265-275 Sep 2005
Publication Date: 2005-09-01Abstract: People take offence too easily and are encouraged to do so by, e.g., institutional harassment policies. “Offensive” is sometimes equated with “anything that offends someone”, sometimes with a definitive list of specific behaviours. When is it justifiable to take offence? Distinctions need to be drawn: between offensive to the senses and to the mind; between meaning to offend, actually giving offence, and behaving in a manner likely to cause offence; between feeling upset and taking some formal action; between what is offensive to some, to all, and in itself. Comments are made on objectivity in moral judgements. Currently there is a failure to distinguish between what offends and what is objectively offensive. Practical consequences occur in terms of censorship and freedom of speech. Generalisations and jokes about identifiable groups or stereotypes are not inherently offensive. A distinction is drawn between being upset and being a victim. Taking offence is a supremely self-serving act. Current concern with offence trivialises morality and runs counter to basic principles of toleration, freedom and fairness.
-
Goodness! What’s been happening here? The strange case of the vanishing comments!
Without arguing that we should encourage this kind of sword-crossing, let’s cut down on the censorship. After all, no-one has to read or comment on any of it.
Thanks for the reference, Ian; think I’ll check it out.
‘If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’ (George Orwell)
-
The removal of content by the forum moderators makes this thread impossible to follow. How bad could the “removed” comments really have been? Did they contain obscenities or hate speech? What was the justification for their removal?
Remember: All things in moderation, including moderation.
Wondering how long it will take for this content to be removed by the forum moderators…
Results
-
