LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  January 2006

SOCNET January 2006

Subject:

Re: [Fwd: Nature's fake news]

From:

Diana Jones <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Diana Jones <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:40:51 +1300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (200 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Hi David, I'm really sorry you have had this experience. I'm not in any
group which is ridiculing your work, and I appreciate you bringing this
experience to the SOCNET list.  Don't expect to be a better spoort about it.
Its quite something to have your work ridiculed by a journalist.

She has picked up this is a large and impressive study. It is quite
extraordinary you and your colleague, along with a number of others, have
the technology and nouse to study such a large number of people over a long
period of time.

I wonder if this in the new paradigm you are referring to Barry? I have been
thinking the new paradigm is being able to map 'invisible' relationships?
I'm keen to hear your thinking too on what the new paradigm is.

And with any new paradigm, it takes a while for the ideas to be accepted.

There is something we can learn from the perception in the article. How do
we have our research perceived as positive and relevant? There are
somethings in SNA which distance us from one another, which I see this
Journalist has picked up on. How do we bring our theory into practice so it
is relevant to people in their everyday relationships?  Having a
psycho-social relationship 'analysed' by algoriths is not going to excite
the average Jo in the street.

Having people called 'nodes' is impersonal, not so easy to relate to. So
while this is a research term, it has the affect of de-personalising people.

Friendships, colleagues, and intimate relationships, and the dropping of
these relationships have significant impacts in people's lives. Algorithms
aren't going to cut the mustard in everyday conversations on these matters.


best wishes, Diana Jones, New Zealand

The Organisation Development Company
Better relationships - better results
+64 4 499 5559 www.sociometry.co.nz






-----Original Message-----
From: David Gibson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 January 2006 6:02 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Fwd: Nature's fake news]


*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Socnetters -- this is a truly outrageous situation. In the very least
beware of Helen Pearson.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Nature's fake news
Date: 	Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:02:25 -0500
From: 	Duncan Watts <[log in to unmask]>
To: 	Duncan Watts <[log in to unmask]>



Dear colleagues -- you might be surprised to learn that /Nature News/,
that bastion of reliable and informed science reporting, is now in
competition with the Daily Show.

But apparently it is.  Starting this week, /Nature News /has begun
publishing an online column: "To be blunt: Looking for the point of
seemingly pointless research," authored by "Sybil", an apparent
reference to the namesake of multiple-personalty disorders. Like the
original Sybil story, however, the news, and the reporter who writes it,
is fake.

The reporter is, in fact, Helen Pearson, a writer for /Nature/ who has
apparently won awards for science journalism in the past.  Her intent,
however, is not to understand or explain the research she discusses, but
to ridicule and belittle it.

I'm embarrassed to say I was Ms. Pearson's first unsuspecting victim.

Last week my graduate student, Gueorgi Kossinets, and I published a
paper in /Science/, entitled "Empirical analysis of an evolving social
network".  I won't burden you with the details here (you can find them
at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5757/88 if you're
interested), but I'm very proud of the paper, as well as Kossinets'
herculean efforts in performing the required analysis.

So I was particularly pleased when Ms. Pearson called me last week,
expressing her interest in writing a story for /Nature's/ online news
site.  Having read Philip Ball's careful and insightful reports for
years, I imagined that /Nature News/ would be a great opportunity for us
to have a substantive but accessible news story written about our work.
And after speaking with Ms. Pearson for about two hours on the phone,
over two consecutive days, sending her some additional reading material,
and recommending (at her request) a number of other social network
researchers she could talk to, I felt pretty confident that we would
have exactly that.  She asked lots of questions, seemed intent on
understanding my responses, and generally acted like a real science
journalist.

So imagine my surprise when monday morning I saw that our work had been
characterized as "bizarre" and "pointless" in a derisive fluff piece by
a fictional columnist.  You can read it, which I recommend you do,
at  http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060109/full/060109-1.html  (don't
worry, it won't take long).

I'm not sure what offends me more: the snide, silly, and ignorant nature
of the column itself; or the weirdly unprofessional manner in which Ms.
Pearson conducted herself.  If you actually read our paper, it should be
obvious that Sybil hasn't, nor has she paid attention to anything I said
or wrote (remember, we spoke for two /hours/, not two minutes). She also
somehow never got around to soliciting comments from anyone else, or
perhaps she just ignored them as well; either way, her opinions remain
uncontaminated by any actual expertise.  That the NSF and the McDonnell
Foundation funded our work, and that /Science/ saw fit to publish it
were also both obviously beside the point.

So what was the point?

According to the news editor, Nicola Jones, Sybil's goal is "to peer
into science that, from its summary, press release or title, appears to
have arrived at a somewhat obvious conclusion. But, by interviewing the
authors of these works and delving more deeply into the science, we hope
to reveal the reasons why such questions are indeed worth investigating."

I don't know what /Science/ said in its press release, because I had
nothing to do with it.  But if you can find the part where our questions
are revealed to be worthy, please let me know, because I seem to have
missed it.  And even overlooking the disingenuous nature of Ms.
Pearson's enquiries, since when does not reading anything, or soliciting
third party opinions, qualify as "delving more deeply into the
science".  Or even satisfy the basic standards of science journalism.
 In any case, understanding the point of our work was clearly never
Sybil's intent, seeing as she overlooked or disparaged most of what I
told her anyway.

So maybe it wasn't meant to be serious, in which case presumably it
doesn't matter that it's sloppy, slanted, and sarcastic.  Ms. Jones, at
least, seems to think I'm the one being unreasonable: the real
intention, she claims, is to "enlighten and amuse" (so much for "delving
deeply").  Why can't I just be a better sport about it?

Well, if you think that publicly belittling someone's work that you
haven't even bothered to read, while remaining anonymous yourself, is
somehow clever, then feel free to have a laugh at my expense.  But
please spare a thought for my graduate student, whose first big paper
has now been tarnished by Ms. Pearson's cheap shot.

And if you don't think it's funny, please share your opinion with the
Editor-in-Chief of Nature, Dr. Philip Campbell <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, who ought to know that while this kind of
silly nonsense might be OK on the Comedy Channel, it has no place in a
distinguished journal like /Nature/.

Sincerely,

Duncan Watts
Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy
815 IAB
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027

(212)854-4343 (phone)
(212)854-8925 (fax)
http://cdg.columbia.edu <http://cdg.columbia.edu/>



--

David Gibson

Assistant Professor

Department of Sociology

University of Pennsylvania

3718 Locust Walk

Philadelphia, PA 19104-6299



http://www.soc.upenn.edu/~gibsond/

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager