On research 'representativeness' Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] LAUNCH of INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROJECT

Thu Jul 22 15:48:34 BST 2004

I'm not sure that this is the place to get drawn into this discussion, but
anyway...

Contra Meryem, the issue in research is not simply "who is funding the
research", but rather in many cases it is "who is funded to do the research"
(and here I am deliberately excluding from this discussion the IGP research
group, several of whom I know and for whom I have the highest personal and
professional regard). 

The issue of research bias certainly in the social sciences is not usually
as overt as funders defining research agendas, rather it comes in through
funders funding certain researchers with known or anticipated perspectives
or, more significantly, the absence of funding for researchers with
divergent perspectives or who simply don't appear on the research funding
radar or whose personal circumstance (e.g. where they live) precludes their
obtaining funding for undertaking certain types of research and in that I
would include most researchers from LDC's, from non-elite institutions and
so on.

So the question of "context" and its significance for research is less that
of casting aspersions on specific research or researchers and more one of
identifying which (research) voices are being heard and more particularly in
this way identifying which (research) voices are not being heard. (And this
is of even greater significance in research with specific policy impact
since one would expect (and hope) there to be a wide diversity of
perspectives and where the ABSENCE of funding in practice acts as a basis
for bias and may in turn have profound policy significance.)

It should also be pointed out that in certain areas (and I would argue in
those areas of particular interest to Civil Society), it is more or less
impossible to do useful and meaningful research without including the
research "subjects" as significant partners in the conduct of the research.

In my own area, Community Informatics, where the objective is not simply
studying how things are with the community applications of ICTs, but also in
making a useful contribution through applying this knowledge to further
enhancing and enabling these applications, the research "subjects" are
necessary partners and contributors to the research. Without their active
participation, the research/application/research cycle is incomplete.

Thus the issue is not "formal" representativeness but rather meaningful and
inclusive partnerships with those with a stake in the conduct, outcome, and
application of the research. 

Michael Gurstein

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Meryem Marzouki
Sent: July 22, 2004 4:30 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: On research 'representativeness' Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] LAUNCH
of INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROJECT

Hi Lisa and all,

I thought it was obvious to everyone that the broader context of a 
research work should by no mean be ignored, and I've myself provided 
some of these broader criteria, including who is funding the given 
research project, thus setting the agenda in some way or another. Putting it
simply and roughly, there is no such thing as 'neutrality' 
or 'objectivity' of a research project.

But all these criteria apply for assessing the research results, not as 
criteria to discredit or delegitimize any research project or research 
team.

And -- most importantly --, putting together a so-called representative 
group of researchers should never be used as an argument to a contrario 
legitimize a research project. First, the group will always miss 
someone to reach true 'representativeness'. Second, as Milton already 
said, it could be "an empty gesture" if these people don't actually 
work together. Third, even if the people actually work together, this 
may mean that they are more or less like-minded people with respect to 
many criteria : although this may indeed provide different perspectives 
in some cases, why on earth gender, ethnicity, country of origin, etc. 
would guarantee this diversity of perspectives ? How could it be 
quantified ? Doesn't this mean, on the contrary, that these people, 
having chosen each other to form a group, will show less diversity than 
expected? Fourth, and this is essential to me, what would be the claim 
of such a group regarding its research results ? "Look how wonderfully 
representative our group is: we've got women and men (and tried to take 
into account their sexual orientations, too), we've got fine quotas of 
ethnicity, we've got 2/3 of people from the South and 1/3 from the 
North (no parity, in order to counter-balance the inequal exchange), 
and, last but not least, we've ensured perfect multistakeholderism. 
Moreover, the research results of this group shows the perfect 
consensus. And then... how could you dare discussing these research 
results ? We are legitimate and credible, and so are our research 
results".
More seriously, good research is diverse research, so that different 
results can be confronted. I'm not saying that we should exclude anyone 
from a given group, or only set-up non 'mixed' groups, just explaining 
why I consider this kind of criteria ('research representativeness') a 
fake, and why I consider it dangerous.

Showing "representativeness" may be good to obtain funding for 
consulting work and more generally speaking when politically 
correctness must be shown, not for achieving scientific research.

Meryem

Le mercredi, 21 juil 2004, à 16:18 Europe/Paris, mclauglm at po.muohio.edu 
a écrit :

> Thank you, Michael, for stating the issue so well. And may I add that
> the notion of "representativeness" should always be interrogated, 
> certainly in our own research, whether or not this work is labeled 
> "scientific research," and even if such queries appear to have the 
> effect of raining on someone else's parade. I'm interested in--but, as 
> a feminist scholar and activist, not amazed at--the notion that 
> scientific research should be exempt from being questioned as to its 
> representativeness. Meryem, what seems dangerous to me is the idea 
> that attempts to achieve representativeness in research will result in 
> nothing productive, just "fake research." Of course it will always 
> fall short--all of us will always fall short in this respect--but at 
> least one can make every effort to be as inclusive as possible (which 
> doesn't entirely rest on the question of whether funding exists for 
> the project).
>
> My best wishes for the possibility that many internet governance
> projects will spring up all over the world, that all are as inclusive 
> and transnational as possible, that all secure adequate funding, and 
> that there is productive dialogue among them despite differences.
>
> Best,
>
> Lisa
>
>
>> Without getting into the ins and outs of this particular research 
>> project it certainly goes in opposition to most of the recent 
>> discussion/analysis in the philosophy/sociology of science to ignore 
>> the broader (social, political, cultural) context of "research" and 
>> of the "researchers" and including their nationality, gender, 
>> intellectual history (what 'school' they belong to for example) and 
>> the representativeness of the perspectives that are "suggested" by 
>> these circumstances.
>> It should be surprising to no one that the more political/policy
>> sensitive the subject matter the more these contextual circumstances 
>> are
>> broadly (and politically) seen as being of relevance with respect to 
>> the
>> research, its conduct, its outcome and its likely significance.
>>
>> So let's not be too outraged at having folks somewhat less than 
>> uniformly sympathetic (ie. somewhat suspicious) of a research project 
>> which appears to the outsider to be uniformly northern, Eurocentric, 
>> and male.
>>
>> MG
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki
>> Sent: July 20, 2004 2:19 AM
>> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>> Subject: On research 'representativeness' Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] 
>> LAUNCH of INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROJECT
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Le mardi, 20 juil 2004, à 04:30 Europe/Paris, Milton Mueller a écrit 
>> :
>>
>> [...]
>>>  Bottom line: If the research we produce is considered by others to
>>> be
>>>  unrepresentative of South perspectives or other perspectives, then
>>>  educate us - criticize it and reject it. Or, better yet,
>>>  form a group that can do it better. IGP enjoys no
>>>  special monopoly on the topic and anyone else can set up
>>>  something similar. Thus, while longer term we do
>>>  intend to expand if possible, I would have to reject
>>>  the implication that no university can publish or do
>>>  research on Internet governance unless it first
>>>  sets up an apparatus of global representation
>>>  (the representativeness of which could always be
>>>  contested anyway).
>>
>> Let me add that I've been quite amazed to read the comments after the
>> announcement of this IG project: it has clearly been presented as a 
>> scientific research project, and since when scientific research 
>> should be considered or assessed against such criteria as 
>> 'representativeness'
>>
>> ? There are many other criteria, scientific and non scientific
>> (though still relevant, like who's funding the research, the 
>> researchers' perpectives, their personal positions, etc.), which do 
>> apply for such assessment. But I never heard of (and would never 
>> accept, as both a scientific researcher and an activist) something 
>> called 'representative
>>
>> research'. This would be nothing but a fake, and a very dangerous
>> one. Almost as dangerous as a so-called 'civil society 
>> representativeness' :-)
>> Although I have absolutely nothing against wearing both research and 
>> activism hats - specially since this is also my own case - I feel 
>> very concerned about what seems to be a totally inappropriate mix 
>> ('mélange des genres', in French).
>>
>> What would be relevant, and very useful, however, is to keep track of
>> different research projets on this issue, to exchange information, 
>> etc., and this list could be one of the means used for that. Although 
>> a
>>
>> formal collaboration and exchange process would indeed require
>> funding,
>>
>> such a loose network and/or database of resources (existing projects,
>> people working on IG, papers, reports, study data and results, 
>> comments, criticisms, etc.) may be started at very marginal costs. 
>> Moreover, as a researcher working on IG issues in France (with other 
>> colleagues), I would be pleased to contribute to the definition and 
>> set
>>
>> up of such a - multilingual - database, and provide tools for an
>> ongoing 'electronic colloquium' (starting only from September, I'm 
>> afraid).
>>
>> I've been glad to learn that this IG project has been launched by our
>> colleagues in the US, and I would also be pleased to learn of any 
>> other
>>
>> similar project anywhere in the world : the more perspectives we can
>> show, the richer the research results would be. We could  use all the 
>> opportunities to meet, like international conferences, etc., to 
>> discuss
>>
>> this scientific network setup possibility, if anyone is interested. I
>> hope that the session on 'Internet Political Governance and Technical 
>> Government' I'm co-organizing during the next 4S/EASST Conference in 
>> Paris (August 25-28, 2004) will provide such an opportunity (see 
>> Session S7 at: http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/csi/programme_4S/jour/
>> programme_jour.php?jour=FRI).
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Meryem
>> _______________________________________________
>> Plenary mailing list
>> Plenary at wsis-cs.org 
>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Plenary mailing list
>> Plenary at wsis-cs.org 
>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org 
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 8232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20040722/a8e3edc3/winmail.bin