constructions

Monday, May 14, 2007

What is a paradox?

I'm sometimes puzzled by how I apply certain concepts and then realise I might be using them all wrong. For instance how I use "paradox" in a work-in-progress (which will be part of a mighty interesting Norwegian anthology to be published in the fall):

The opportunity to design personal performances through edited pieces of textual, visual and sonic elements denotes that the individual has control with her or his own presentation, but only to some degree. As such online personal practices are characterised by a control-paradox: on the one hand individuals can construct filtered yet accurate and beneficial self-presentations (both socially and professionally); and on the other hand, once published, users have little control over content and little chance of preventing abuse such as republishing without consent.

Considering actual definitions of "paradox" I am not at all sure this is the concept I should be using.

Paradox: an argument which seems to justify a self-contradictory conclusion by using valid deductions from acceptable premises.

Other definitions.

By the way, the actual article concerns digital dilemmas: briefly summarised:

Users of social network services experience that having a publicly available online presence is meaningful. However, sharing texts, photos, videos, communicative acts and visualisations of social networks with known and unknown others may contest issues of privacy. Users consequently face a dilemma with two unfavourable options: protecting one’s privacy by not using social network services, despite potentially undesirable personal and social consequences. Or, alternatively, choosing to have an online presence and hence put one’s privacy at risk.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 08, 2007

substitute or supplement

Are you tired of discussions of whether new technologies substitute or supplement old technologies? I think Eric A. Havelock's moves beyond such a discussion in his beautiful book The Muse Learns to Write. He discusses how literacy, as it emerged with the Greek writing system, created the character of modern consciousness. Yet, it was not so that writing merely replaced or supplemented oral storytelling. Neither did the introduction of the radio represent a reversion to past oral times. No, these technological developments represent marriage and remarriage between the spoken word and the written. I've only reached page 33, looking forward to the rest. Havelock was 83 when he wrote the book.

(...) the epics as we know them are the result of some interlock between the oral and the literate; or to vary the metaphor, the acoustic flow of language contrived by echo to hold the attention of the ear has been reshuffled into visual patterns created by the thoughtful attention of the eye (page 13).

Wow, the art of writing .

Labels: ,

Monday, February 19, 2007

IM vs. face-to-face interviews

Interestingly, when reading my thesis-articles, quotes from face-to-face interviews appear just as eloquent as quotes from instant messenger-interviews. Yet talking (putting experiences into narratives on the go), is rarely a very smooth process, and I have edited quotes from face-to-face interviews to make them more readable (I'm not doing a conversation analysis in any case). I consequently disguise a rather interesting and important methodological aspect of instant messenger versus face-to-face interviews.

Consider the following excerpt from a face-to-face interview with 17-year old Morten:

"I have therefore added many people to my Live Journal friends-list just so that I can read what they write by watching my friends updates without them having the possibility to. Maybe they think they are on my friends-list and get to read all of my entries, but they really don’t get access to read my closed entries, because they are not in the right group like, you know."

I was rather intrigued when I realised how much I have actually edited the above quote, but I guess (hope) the meaning is intact:

"I’ve added many people to my Live Journal friends-list to be able to keep track of their updates. Maybe they think they get to read all of my closed entries, but they can’t because they are not in the right friends-group."

My MSN-interviews (only five) last longer in time, but yield about 1/3 of the words if compared to face-to-face interviews. The answers are more concise with a lot less filling-words. Consequently they do not contain a lot less in "content".

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 26, 2007

mystery

How is it that whenever, and I mean every single time, I have to shorten an article I've written (argh, did they mean max. 8000 words including notes and references!), the result is always an improved article? I've just cut nearly 2000 words in one of my articles, and it reads so much better now. I guess this means I should definitely work to keep number of words in my final dissertation down to a minimum, right?

Labels: ,