Feedback on list research

[Christine Hine]

Some time ago I invited members of this list to help me with some
research that I was doing on the uses of information and communications
technologies in systematics. I'm researching the way that new
infrastructures for knowledge production are developing in science,
using systematics as a case study. I focused on the Taxacom list because
it seemed to me to play a key role in promoting and discussing use of
digital resources in systematics. I was also concerned that in my
research I tended to use the list as if it were a mirror of the
discipline as a whole, and I wanted to explore how far other users
shared that perception. I promised to post back to the list a summary of
my findings. What follows is a summary of key points that have a direct
bearing on Taxacom. There's a longer summary version on my web site at
http://joni.soc.surrey.ac.uk/~scs1ch/taxacom.htm , and if anyone is
really interested I'm happy to send the full chapter if you email me.
The full chapter talks more broadly about the prospects for new
communication regimes in systematics.

Taxacom and systematics - some summary points

Continuity. People who use this list tend to see it as part of the
overall "communication ecology" of the discipline. Earlier sociologies
of mailing lists tended to examine them in isolation, but this clearly
doesn't do justice to the ways that users perceive them.

A mirror of the discipline. People do see the list as a reflection of
disciplinary concerns, and use it for current awareness, but temper this
with an active reading that expects certain concerns and perspectives to
be over-represented.

Geographic bias. Several people told me that they felt the list didn't
represent the full geographic spread of systematics expertise. Accurate
figures are hard to come by, but there is some evidence that this is the
case.

Digital resources. The list is often used to promote new online
resources. This has a positive feedback effect - the more that resources
are promoted, the more their production comes to be seen as a normal
part of contemporary systematics.

Motivations for assistance. Sociologists often wonder why people should
contribute their expertise online. Seeing the Taxacom list as a way of
addressing the discipline helps to motivate people to make contributions
and to feel the need to correct misperceptions - although some people
may be inhibited from posting because of anxieties about talking "to the
discipline".

No value judgments are implied. As I say, I see this as a case study of
the way that one discipline has taken a communication medium and made it
its own. One of the most interesting things for me is how much the uses
and perceptions of mailing lists vary between disciplines. They have
become important in many different fields, but take widely varying
forms.

I'd be grateful for any feedback people might want to give me, or
comments they might want me to consider. I'm happy to offer
clarifications where the summary above is too cryptic. As ever, I'm
concerned that I don't want to hijack the list and fill your mailboxes
with discussions about non-systematics matters, so I leave it to your
discretion whether you mail me personally or the list as a whole.

Best wishes,

Christine

Christine Hine
Department of Sociology
University of Surrey
Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK
c.hine at surrey.ac.uk
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/christine_hine.htm