reseņas educativas (Spanish)
resenhas educativas (Portuguese)
This commentary has been accessed times since January 31, 2005
Commentary on the review by John Rothfork of “Howard, Philip N. and Steve Jones. (2004). Society Online: The Internet in Context.” (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications)
Pp. xxxiv + 350
$37.95 (Paperback) $84.95 (Hardcover) ISBN 0-76-192708-5Philip N. Howard
University of WashingtonJanuary 31, 2005
Rothfork’s critique represents the best qualities of the contemporary art in reviewing. His writing not only provides constructive commentary on the arguments of each chapter, but he advances research by providing links to new data that often confirms—and sometimes contradicts—the trends and conclusions drawn by contributors to Society Online.
The only thing that makes us balk is the Rothfork’s idea of skipping the methods section! We sought to illustrate the wide range of methods used in studying society online, carefully selecting pieces both for research questions and tools for inquiry. Debating methodological points may seem tedious, but methodological innovation has been an important and exciting of consequence of studying society online.
Of course Rothfork is right to charge that there is not enough material about sex online. In fact, we admit that there is not enough content about many kind of deviant online behavior online: no crime, no porn, and no hacking. (We would not consider hacking a deviant behavior, but unfortunately most people do.) This is not surprising as we do not have good data about deviant behavior. In the spirit of his constructive critique he offers the latest ballpark figures about the size of the porn industry. We could also have provided ballpark figures about the impact of criminal networks and the cost of hacking. But in survey research, respondents simply don’t reveal their pornographic interests over the phone. For many academic researchers, the procedural hurdles to earn permission from Human Subjects Review Committees to study deviant online behavior, no matter the method, actually discourage such research. Rothfork does a good job of illustrating how important these lines of inquiry are for future research.
Rothfork’s review essay itself is an example of an important change in the work of academe. For centuries, the onus has been on the reader to check other sources and make sure the facts of argument are up to date, long after the book is published. In the networked academy, this responsibility is distributed. Contemporary authors and editors need to provide access to raw data. Reviewers and readers can offer access to new resources as they come available, linking those new resources directly to original arguments. Authors and editors, in turn, need to be open to creating links to new data that challenge their own core arguments. We can humbly say that many of the arguments in Society Online still stand on solid evidentiary ground. Those that don’t have been constructively and gracefully updated by this reviewer.
Philip N. Howard
Department of Communication
University of Washington
http://faculty.washington.edu/pnhoward/<
~ ER home | Reseņas Educativas | Resenhas Educativas ~
~ overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements | search ~