Posted by Noa on July 3, 2001, at 16:27:16
In reply to Re: another post about the article, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2001, at 9:17:35
> > But did you check with the owner of the ISMHO list? Those posts aren't public, like these. :-)
I was wondering about that. Mitchell, are you a member of that yahoo group (not the general nonmember mailing list, but the group where you can read messages and post)?What about John Grohol's open journal--is that public? Must be, because, unlike the yahoo groups site, I got access to the journal and archives.
The whole discussion is very interesting, though I am not sure about the public nature of the criticism.
I, personally, see that some things might have been done differently in publishing the article (for example, Dr. Bob's reflection about blacking out the screen name in the graphic).
However, I also don't see the article as *research* perse, so
"the environment being observed should not be one's own" (Grohol, Open Journal, 6-5-01)
doesn't seem that big a deal to me. It seemed to me that Dr. Bob did not present the article so much as research, but as a descriptive piece, I think. I am sure there are many precedents in mental health literature of clinicians writing descriptive articles about work they were involved in.
If, though, some kind of review process should have been followed, I do wonder about why the journal that published the article didn't enforce such a process before publishing it. One guess would be that these issues are still in the formative stages with regard to internet application, so just as Dr. Bob might have not followed a "protocol" for review, the journal might not have even had such a process to enforce with contributors. I don't know.
poster:Noa
thread:1532
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/1534.html