计算机媒介传播的语言和批判性分析:一些伦理和学术考虑

Inf. Soc. Pub Date : 1996-06-01 DOI:10.1080/911232343
S. Herring
{"title":"计算机媒介传播的语言和批判性分析:一些伦理和学术考虑","authors":"S. Herring","doi":"10.1080/911232343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay compares two proposals (Cavazos, 1994; King, this issue) relating to whether and how CMC researches should cite electronic messages used as data. Although the proposals prescribe opposite solutions, both contain similiar assumptions about the nature of CMC (e.g., that it is homogeneous, that members of a \"virtual community\" have shared agendas) and about the nature of research (e.g., that it is content focused; that it is ideally consensual; that it should not affect the researched in any way). These assumptions are argued to reflect discipline-specifc biases that exclude other legitimate forms of CMC research. Two examples are discussed of research paradigms that are excluded by the guidelines: linguistic analysis in the positivist tradition, and critical analysis in the social realist tradition. The critical paradigm in particular raises a number of additional ethical considerations not addressed by the proposed guidelines. It is suggested that the existing ethical guidelines within each disc...","PeriodicalId":259468,"journal":{"name":"Inf. Soc.","volume":"166 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"124","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Linguistic and Critical Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication: Some Ethical and Scholarly Considerations\",\"authors\":\"S. Herring\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/911232343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay compares two proposals (Cavazos, 1994; King, this issue) relating to whether and how CMC researches should cite electronic messages used as data. Although the proposals prescribe opposite solutions, both contain similiar assumptions about the nature of CMC (e.g., that it is homogeneous, that members of a \\\"virtual community\\\" have shared agendas) and about the nature of research (e.g., that it is content focused; that it is ideally consensual; that it should not affect the researched in any way). These assumptions are argued to reflect discipline-specifc biases that exclude other legitimate forms of CMC research. Two examples are discussed of research paradigms that are excluded by the guidelines: linguistic analysis in the positivist tradition, and critical analysis in the social realist tradition. The critical paradigm in particular raises a number of additional ethical considerations not addressed by the proposed guidelines. It is suggested that the existing ethical guidelines within each disc...\",\"PeriodicalId\":259468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Inf. Soc.\",\"volume\":\"166 3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"124\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Inf. Soc.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/911232343\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inf. Soc.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/911232343","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 124

摘要

本文比较了两种建议(Cavazos, 1994;这个问题)涉及CMC研究是否以及如何引用电子信息作为数据。虽然提案规定了相反的解决方案,但两者都包含了关于CMC性质的类似假设(例如,它是同质的,“虚拟社区”的成员有共同的议程)和关于研究性质的假设(例如,它以内容为中心;理想情况下,这是双方同意的;它不应该以任何方式影响研究)。这些假设被认为反映了学科特定的偏见,排除了其他合法形式的CMC研究。本文讨论了两种被指南排除在外的研究范式:实证主义传统的语言分析和社会现实主义传统的批判分析。关键范式特别提出了一些拟议指导方针未涉及的额外伦理考虑。建议每个光盘中现有的道德准则…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Linguistic and Critical Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication: Some Ethical and Scholarly Considerations
This essay compares two proposals (Cavazos, 1994; King, this issue) relating to whether and how CMC researches should cite electronic messages used as data. Although the proposals prescribe opposite solutions, both contain similiar assumptions about the nature of CMC (e.g., that it is homogeneous, that members of a "virtual community" have shared agendas) and about the nature of research (e.g., that it is content focused; that it is ideally consensual; that it should not affect the researched in any way). These assumptions are argued to reflect discipline-specifc biases that exclude other legitimate forms of CMC research. Two examples are discussed of research paradigms that are excluded by the guidelines: linguistic analysis in the positivist tradition, and critical analysis in the social realist tradition. The critical paradigm in particular raises a number of additional ethical considerations not addressed by the proposed guidelines. It is suggested that the existing ethical guidelines within each disc...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信