Malcolm Gladwell: Outliers: The Story of Success
Although I don't completely agree with Gladwell, this book again is engaging. Malcolm Gladwell (who used to live not far from our new home town) is a real storyteller.
Peter Watson: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud
What a book! It will probably take me some time to finish the more than 1000 pages, but till now every page is worth the effort.
« Impressions of BlogWalk 1.0 | Main | Portrait of BlogWalk 1.0 participants »
Robert posted a link to a very interesting paper from Bonnie Nardi, Diana Schiano, Michelle Gumbrecht and Luke Swartz, called "I'm blogging this", A closer look at why people blog (submitted to Communications of the ACM).
I'm going to read it instantly!
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345611ce69e200d834564aa869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another interesting weblog paper:
» "I'm Blogging This" A closer look at why people blog from Mathemagenic
Just experienced nice example of backchanneling in blogging. [Read More]
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Hi Carla,
Have you also seen this list, over at Seb's, with papers about blogging in education?
http://seblogging.cognitivearchitects.com/2004/03/22#a1244
Posted by: Ton Zijlstra | March 22, 2004 at 07:17 PM
Dear Carla,
Replace "Blog" by "Taxi Driving" and it still makes sense. This paper is bogus I think. Statistically irrelevant, methods doubtful ("we ran a customised script on each of the informant's blogs" is not going to work, as I experienced), no theory, no model, just observations. If it does get published in CACM, I wil have to resign my subscription.
Perhaps, I'm missing something ....
Anjo.
Posted by: Anjo | March 22, 2004 at 11:36 PM
Hi Ton,
no, I haven't seen it so thanks for the tip!
Hi Anjo,
It's a pity if you resign your description because of this paper. I think the authors' type of research (qualitative, inductive) is just a different way (another way, not quantitative and statistically correct) of doing research, it's goal is to develop theory from the examples, just because there is no theory (about blogging) till now. They describe what they see, which is a descriptive method and to me a first step in the direction of modelling. Quantitative research is not the (only) 'correct' way of doing research, I think.
Carla
Posted by: Carla | March 23, 2004 at 08:59 AM
Carla,
I do not have a problem with the paper as such, it is just the prospect of seeing it published in CACM (a journal which has tracked progress in IT over many decades).
A paper on the blogging phenomenon in CACM would be ok, but this is just a seemingly random collection of impressions (anecdotes) and there are other platforms that appear more appropriate.
Anjo.
Posted by: Anjo | March 24, 2004 at 01:00 AM
Ok, Anjo, I can understand this reason a bit more. Still, I wouldn't do it.. (maybe write a letter to the editor)
Carla
Posted by: Carla | March 25, 2004 at 09:07 AM