Working on the tougher bits of my dissertation now (defense is really scheduled, finally), and trying to come to terms with my relationship with the science blogosphere and twitterverse (or whatever). Some other articles - and one was particularly cringeworthy - on the topic have been in the not-even-wrong category. It's like someone trying to explain your culture to you and just getting it wrong (like my old boss who kept insisting I was Orthodox even though I told her a million times I'm Catholic, just Eastern Rite/Ukrainian).
Am I in a privileged position here on Scientopia? To have attended Science Online for several years? To have met and chatted with many science bloggers? Thought deeply about science blogging since about 2004?
Am I just a fan girl who gushes about the wonders of blogging to anyone who will listen? Despite being told that it's dead? (at least people have finally stopped telling me wikis will take over. siiiiiigh). Am I uncritical in my support?
If I am in a privileged position as a long time (peripheral?) participant observer, how do I convey that? These other articles - I can often see how they got to the results and interpretations they did, but meh. Maybe I'm fooling myself, too, but in a different way? they are published, I am not.
So looking at definitions of prolonged engagement and persistent observation and well, damn, I had better go to bed as a) Easter tomorrow and b) twin 3 year olds get up when they want to.