Just had a meeting with Phil
He wants me to :get RO a context; read weick - bridging indiv/instit gap; change time q
justify why that ro (it cant be disjointed from lit); scope each question out; get karahanna misq paper and see what I can do with the framework in terms of extending it from the lit...
He also (accidentally) used the word perspective instead of perception. I like that word better. Though it seems more objective and cognitive. It is less cumbersome than perceptions, attitudes, beliefs...
He hadn't read the bit where I try to tie together the method to the questions, which would have been nice and maybe more productive... he wants me to work on the lit... when I want to work on archives.
I had some very warm responses on the archives:
"I'm sure the owners would not mind you mining; i used it to recruit. this one is bigger, not necessarily better educators@lists.secondlife.com, same owners.
I'll twitter him and ask him to look at ur posting."
"it's a public forum and everyone ought to stand behind his or her
words. that said, if you're not actually identifying anyone and just
using generic statistical analysis, there's definitely no reason you
shouldn't feel free to go ahead with your research."
"I think it's correct that you can do it.
Why not?
We need an open minded, collaborative and constructive approach.
I hope the manager of this mailing list will open contents archive not only
for you, but for the whole community at all.
maybe open only to the registred users; anyway, open :)"
Hmmm, the SLRL list minder wants to know what I'm up to... I hope he says ok.
No comments:
Post a Comment