Hello!
In my own Ph.D. research, I refer to my "informants" as participants of the
research for epistemological reasons. So I prefer participants. Nevertheless, informant is
not only restricted to FBI :-), it is the "hegemonic" concept used in sociology
or political science. We have to balance if we prefer participants because it is how
better characterise it in our view, or if we priories a concept that will be more easily
recognised. Perhaps a solution is to put in the first occasion: participant or informant
and from that, to put only participant.
Cheers! Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
«·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»
«·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance:
http://www.onlinecreation.info
Ph.D European University Institute
Research collaborator. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of
Barcelona.
Visiting researcher. School of information. University of California, Berkeley.
Phone Italy: 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982
Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
E-mail: mayo.fuster(a)eui.eu
Skype: mayoneti
Postal address: EUI - Badia Fiesolana
Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) - Italy
-----Missatge original-----
De: rcom-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org en nom de Luca de Alfaro
Enviat el: dt. 19/10/2010 22:48
Per a: riedl(a)cs.umn.edu; The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list
Tema: Re: [RCom-l] [Request for input] Developing a research policy
I agree on the preference for participants!
Luca
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:28 PM, John Riedl <riedl(a)cs.umn.edu> wrote:
I'm a big fan of "participants".
Subjects sounds passive and
"operated on" -- which is not a good description of most Wikipedians!
John
P.S. One of our most memorable moments in researching MovieLens was
when we launched a new A/B study and our participants figured out what
we were doing by comparing notes on our bulletin boards. One of them
wrote:
"Once again, thanks for the site. I react in this way, also in part,
because probably your widget counters are also gauging this, and I
wanted to be an honest little white rat! See: Charly & Of Mice and
Men"
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Parul Vora <pvora(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
"subjects" is definitely typical, but
in my experience and conversations
(mostly at this years wikisym and wikimania) wikipedians feel more
comfortable with "participants" and i try to use it where it doesn't
confuse/dilute.
On 10/19/10 1:08 PM, Luca de Alfaro wrote:
No, no! "Informants" are the kind that needs FBI protection! :)
"subjects" is the usual words, "human guinea-pigs" would be less
ambiguous,
but... :)
Luca
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:00, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
2010/10/18 Erik Moeller
<erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
>subject-matter recruitment
OK, this is definitely the last time I made this typo. I mean
recruiting subjects for research projects. :-)
May we redefine it as something like "recruiting informants for
research projects"? My first parsing of "subjects" is "topics"
and I
don't think that I am alone in that.
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)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
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)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