[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

Tue Dec 24 17:51:28 UTC 2013

In message <3F10892B-57AC-4B97-9DC0-E5512879249E at gmail.com>, at 14:21:14 
on Tue, 24 Dec 2013, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> writes
>> >[perhaps] the LOG thinks ... that the "technical and academia >community" is actually a single category, which would be a throw-back >to the
>> >nonsensical UN WSIS formulation (which inter alia implies that >the only “academics" worth including are technical people, not social
>> >>scientists etc
>>
>> Isn't it more to do with the existence of a significant body of *policy making* (rather than *IT engineering*) folks within the academic
>>community who are sufficiently integrated into what's generally called the I-star community that it's needlessly complicated to try to
>>separate them back out again.
>>
>> Some of them are quite likely social scientists.
>
>Theoretically this is possible, but in practice it hasn’t been the 
>issue or the debate since WSIS, and I don’t think it’s the issue 
>here either. I am curious though, who are these quite likely social 
>scientists?

I'm not going to start quoting academics' CVs but it would surprise me a 
lot if there were none who qualified in the terms I describe.

There also seem to be many academics involved in IG (and associated with 
I-Star organisations) who are not IT engineers. Social scientist is just 
one label they might self-select.
-- 
Roland Perry