In a message dated 2/26/01 1:23:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, Mac4781@aol.com writes:
<< Those brief answers just might indicate they don't want to be studied. Or as Sally very aptly put it-- "I start feeling uncomfortable, a little like a lab rat who hasn't been asked before the electrodes go in." >>
Yes, well, that was certainly *my* immediate thought in response to Fiona's statements. Uh, maybe I don't want to be studied, especially in such a manner. Maybe I also don't want to have my motives for liking certain types of fan fiction examined and I certainly don't particularly care to be *told* why I like something and what that something "is" (in complete disagreement to my own stated preferences and what *I* believe that something "is").
This is, in fact, the crux of the problem many fans had with Camille Bacon-Smith and Henry Jenkins' books about fandom. Many fans were highly offended that they had been part of some sort of "study." Personally, I have never had a problem with either book or either author... but, then, both authors had spoken directly to both Leah and myself and I remember even signing a release with one of them. So, we *did* know what they were up to. Apparently, there were a good number of fans who didn't know and didn't take kindly to be the basis of someone's academic lab experiment.
Annie
Tavia, Annie, Carol--
--- Ashton7@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/26/01 1:23:03 PM Eastern
Standard Time, Mac4781@aol.com writes:
<< Those brief answers just might indicate they don't want to be studied. Or as Sally very aptly put it-- "I start feeling uncomfortable, a little like a lab rat who hasn't been asked before the electrodes go in." >>
Yes, well, that was certainly *my* immediate thought in response to Fiona's statements. Uh, maybe I don't want to be studied, especially in such a manner.
Oh, guys, this HURTS. This really, bloody hurts. You may feel like a lab rat, but to be honest, I feel like someone who has spoken up in favour of animal experimentation and come home to find my car burnt down and my house smashed up by animal rights activists (my apologies to Neil for this overgeneralization, but it's true).
I did not want to "study" anybody on the list. I did ask that those people *WHO WANTED TO* answer an honest question about a subject which I did not know about. Nobody is sticking electrodes in your forehead, Annie. Nobody is forcing yout to answer my posts.
Sally and Betty were mature enough to take me at my word, and provide me with intelligent and sensible answers, rather than making nasty overgeneralisations about social scientists.
And for people who go on about sticking up for underdogs as much as that, that's pretty low.
Fiona
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Fiona Moore wrote:
Sally and Betty were mature enough to take me at my word, and provide me with intelligent and sensible answers, rather than making nasty overgeneralisations about social scientists.
In my case, this may have less to do with "maturity" than with the fact that I'm quite happy to have the metaphorical electrodes stuck in. (Heck, I'd probably volunteer for the *literal* electrodes if they'd let me in on the results.) My response to this kind of "study" (as long as it *does* seem to stem from a genuine and non-judgmental interest in how other people think) is pretty much going to be along the lines of "Here, sure, let me help you with those electrodes. Can I probe *your* brain next, please?" It comes as a bit of a surprise to me, really, to see how defensive other people can get about being put "under scrutiny," although I can certainly understand it now that I think about it... Especially when one feels one is being *told* what one thinks instead of *asked* about it. (Not that you seemed to me to be doing that, Fiona.)
Anyway, Fiona, it seemed to me that you deserved an intelligent and sensible answer because you asked an intelligent and sensible question. If you'd come across to me as nasty and judgmental, I probably would have just ignored you, but you didn't, certainly not the way that some others did. It kind of saddens me, actually, to think that *why* individual fans are into the things they're into has become the kind of topic which can't be discussed without generating hurt feelings. Because it's something that's really, truly, interesting to me.
--- Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org wrote: > Fiona Moore wrote:
Sally and Betty were mature enough to take me at
my
word, and provide me with intelligent and sensible answers, rather than making nasty
overgeneralisations
about social scientists.
In my case, this may have less to do with "maturity" than with the fact that I'm quite happy to have the metaphorical electrodes stuck in. (Heck, I'd probably volunteer for the *literal* electrodes if they'd let me in on the results.)
:)!
This is true with me too, flamewars aside. I do actually participate in colleagues' studies and surveys when asked, on the grounds that:
a) if you don't help other people with their projects, they won't help you with yours, and
b) I find, whatever other people may think aside, that having myself analysed in this way can give me new insights into what makes me tick (as my sister once said on the subject of volunteering for a project on stress in universities: "Hey, free therapy!")
the lines of "Here, sure, let me help you with those electrodes. Can I probe *your* brain next, please?"
Which is in my experience usually what happens. As I said, most social scientists are quite kindly and interested people who get genuinely shocked (pardon the pun) when accused of treating people like subjects. My department, in fact, once tried to commission an American anthropologist to come in and study *it* (on the grounds that an anthropology of anthropologists was long overdue), but couldn't get funding.
It comes as a bit of a surprise to
me, really, to see how defensive other people can get about being put "under scrutiny," although I can certainly understand it now that I think about it...
Me too, on both scores, which I suppose can be put down to sheer scientific naivete on my part. I suppose I've been rather lucky in that I haven't had to encounter that attitude very much in my professional life...
Anyway, thanks once again for your answer. It left me, as I said, with new insights into why some people like H/C, and also into where my own prejudices on the subject were coming from. Certainly, if I've ever dismissed a story in the past on the grounds that it was H/C, I'm more likely to take a good hard look at it now...
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Annie wrote:
Uh, maybe I don't want to be studied, especially in such a manner. Maybe I also don't want to have my motives for liking certain types of fan fiction examined and I certainly don't particularly care to be *told* why I like something and what that something "is" (in complete disagreement to my own stated preferences and what *I* believe that something "is").
This is, in fact, the crux of the problem many fans had with Camille Bacon-Smith and Henry Jenkins' books about fandom. Many fans were highly offended that they had been part of some sort of "study." Personally, I have never had a problem with either book or either author... but, then, both authors had spoken directly to both Leah and myself and I remember even signing a release with one of them. So, we *did* know what they were up to. Apparently, there were a good number of fans who didn't know and didn't take kindly to be the basis of someone's academic lab experiment.
OK, well as someone who is both a fan and who has researched, studied and published on fandom thanks to participants from this very list, I feel I have to come in on this discussion.
I would be *gutted* to think that people on this list have felt like lab rats. Everyone who took part in the Q study took part, I *truly* hope, because they wanted to, and knew that they were free to pull their responses if they didn't want them analyzed. I hope I behaved professionally throughout, and if anyone who took part feels as if I misrepresented or mistook them; *please*, let me know (off list). I hope to god that people know that I have the utmost respect for their opinions and thoughts, and that when I work not just as an academic but as a *human being* (and these are the *same thing* to me) on any subject, *all* I am doing is trying to *understand*.
I analyze B7 fandom because I'm part of that community; I love it and the show. I also love my academic work and it's part of my nature to use it to understand my own everyday life. I work under an admittedly vague and possibly deluded assumption that both fans and colleagues might be interested in hearing how I think, academically, about fandom - or, fannishly, about academia.
I'm finding as I type I'm starting to get upset, which definitely *is* unprofessional, so I'm off for another cup of coffee.
Una
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Una McCormack wrote:
I would be *gutted* to think that people on this list have felt like lab rats. Everyone who took part in the Q study took part, I *truly* hope, because they wanted to, and knew that they were free to pull their responses if they didn't want them analyzed. I hope I behaved professionally throughout, and if anyone who took part feels as if I misrepresented or mistook them; *please*, let me know (off list).
You behaved impeccably, Una.
I hope to god that people know that I have the utmost respect
for their opinions and thoughts,
Even mine?
and that when I work not just as an academic
but as a *human being* (and these are the *same thing* to me) on any subject, *all* I am doing is trying to *understand*.
Academics are a part of that subset of humanity which is interested, above all, in understanding the world about them. One does this by observation, experiment, framing broad theories and testing them, putting forward conjectures and seeing if they hold up. That's the only way that works: anything else is either masturbation or mathematics.
Whether Jenkins, Bacon-Smith or McCormack get it right or wrong isn't the main issue. What matters is that they've made an intellectually honest effort to understand a part of the world, and they present their conclusions to the entire community to be criticised, refuted, attacked, defended, supported or revised. Doing so, they provide a great service to everyone else who is interested in understanding the world: we can read their work, accept or reject their conclusions, and use their methods and arguments as building blocks with which to construct our own models of the world. This is a valuable contribution, regardless of how right or wrong a particular conclusion might turn out to be.
I analyze B7 fandom because I'm part of that community; I love it and the show. I also love my academic work and it's part of my nature to use it to understand my own everyday life. I work under an admittedly vague and possibly deluded assumption that both fans and colleagues might be interested in hearing how I think, academically, about fandom - or, fannishly, about academia.
Your own Q-study was fun to participate in, and fascinating to read about. It's a genuinely original and valuable piece of research, and this entire mailing list should be proud to have helped give birth to it.
Iain
-
Ashton7＠aol.com -
Betty Ragan -
Fiona Moore -
Iain Coleman -
Una McCormack