Category Archives: Uncategorized

ACFAS 415 – Savoirs hybrides et enjeux pour l’expertise

Quelques détails et références sur ma présentation pour le colloque “Les sciences à l’aube du 21e siècle : l’incidence des technologies numériques et la contribution des amateurs”

Communauté en ligne comme vecteur de la communication de la science en action

“Le savoir médical impose depuis toujours une distinction entre les experts, qui en disposent (les professionnels, les médecins) des autres (les « profanes », les patients, les clients) qui parfois vont jusqu’à « subir » les diagnostics et les avis qui sont portés sur leur santé. L’arrivée d’Internet a lentement bouleversé cette répartition de la connaissance médicale et la hiérarchie ascendante de la relation patient/médecin. En tant qu’outil d’élaboration, de partage, de mise à disposition de nouveaux savoirs, mais aussi en tant qu’outil accessible au plus grand nombre, Internet a rebattu les cartes de la connaissance médicale, en permettant aux individus d’accroître leurs connaissances sur la santé, de la mettre en discussion, mais aussi – sans totalement le remettre en cause – d’acquérir du pouvoir sur le corps médical. ” (Amsellem-Mainguy, 2015)

« le système de santé doit avant tout pouvoir prouver, au niveau économique, qu’il y a de vrais gains à tirer de l’expertise du patient. »

 

 

Références

Akrich, M., Méadel, C., Rémy, C., & Vergnaud, F. (2008). Les patients et l’information: le cancer au risque d’internet.

Amsellem-Mainguy, Y. (2015). À la fin, tu penses que tu vas mourir, mais tu y retournes! Rapport d’étude Jeunes, Santé et Internet, Institut national de la jeunesse et de l’éducation populaire.

Benski, T., & Fisher, E. (2014). Introduction : investigating emotions and the Internet. Dans T. Benski & E. Fisher (dir.), Internet and emotions. New York, NY : Routledge.

Clavier, V., Manes-Gallo, M.-C., Mounier, E., Paganelli, C., Romeyer, H. et Staii, A. (2010). Dynamiques interactionnelles et rapport à l’information dans les forums de discussion médicale. Dans F. Millerand, S. Proulx & J. Rueff (dir.), Web social: mutation de la communication (p. 297-314). Québec, QC.

Nabarette, H. (2002). L’internet médical et la consommation d’information par les patients. Réseaux(4), 249-286.

Romeyer, H. (2008). TIC et santé: entre information médicale et information de santé. tic&société, 2(1).

Romeyer, H. (2010). La santé dans l’espace public (pp. 213-p). Presses de l’EHESP.

Romeyer, H. (2012). La santé en ligne. Des enjeux au-delà de l’information. Communication. Information médias théories pratiques, 30(1).

Trépos, J. Y. (2002). L’expertise comme équipement politique de la société civile. Questions de communication, (2), 7-18.

Ressources pour des cours sur l’espace public et communication

Quelques liens utiles pour enrichir les cours de communication.

🎬  une courte vidéo sur l’espace public bourgeois et Habermas

🔗Glossaire de Dominique Wolton (communication; modernité et modernisation; individu; espace public, commun et politique)

 

Journalisme citoyen et vérification de l’information

📋 Décodex : les conseils du journal Le monde pour vérifier les informations qui circulent en ligne URL

Qualitative Data Analysis – video series

Nick Hopwood


ATTENTION: MORE VIDEOS IN THE SERIES WILL BE ADDED TO THIS POST OVER COMING WEEKS

This post links to a videos that form a series for people grappling with the many challenges of analysing qualitative data. To me analysis is by far the hardest but also most rewarding part of research. One thing I have learned over the many years is that there are no short cuts! Good analysis has to take time. Lots of time. Time with your data. So you won’t find tips and strategies for a quick outcome or cutting corners. I focus on ideas that are relatively simple to grasp but profound in their implications, while avoiding areas that are covered extensively in textbooks and methods literature. The videos are relatively short, and I will embed pictures of any slides that appear in the videos here.

You can use these links to skip directly to the videos:

Video 1: The messy…

View original post 509 more words

LA FIGURE DE L’USAGER ORDINAIRE : ÉLÉMENTS THÉORIQUES ET MÉTHODOLOGIQUES

Je présente à la troisième vidéoconférence publique dans le cadre de la série “Nouvelles perspectives sur les usages”

L’usager ordinaire des dispositifs de communication ne se définit pas par ses caractéristiques sociodémographiques (âge, genre, éducation, emploi…) mais par ses usages et ses pratiques. Les outils de communication étant devenus indissociables des activités quotidiennes, comprendre l’usager ordinaire revient à comprendre son quotidien. En s’inspirant des travaux d’Henri Lefebvre et de Michel de Certeau, le quotidien, concept clé qui recouvre les processus à travers lesquels les individus font sens de leur vie, permet d’envisager la figure de l’usager ordinaire dans toute sa profondeur théorique. Mais l’étude du quotidien soulève aussi des défis et contraintes méthodologiques, car il est mobile, fluide et multiple.

Vendredi 23 janvier de 10h00 à 12h00 à l’UQAM

La conférence-débat se tiendra dans la salle R-1910,au pavillon des sciences de la gestion. Et non au  J-2615

Québec : Salle 1444, Pavillon La Laurentienne, Université Laval

WSSF 2013

This October will be held the WORLD SOCIAL SCIENCE FORUM in Montreal.

source : worldsocialscience.org

Scholars from all over the world and across disciplines will address the ways in which digital technologies are being developed and used, and how they are transforming different spheres of social life and social sciences. I will be part of one exciting panel on the engagement of  ordinary user in science.

Participatory Science on the Web : The Re-enchantment of Science by Online Collectives

The participatory Web (Web 2.0) enables and encourages ordinary citizens to participate in developing and sharing content online. In the sciences, new connections between amateurs and scientists are stimulating public interest in science. They are also changing the way scientific knowledge is produced in some fields. By examining four cases in the natural sciences, this panel proposes an examination of the rearticulation of relationships between amateurs and scientists and the role of Web platforms in providing providing spaces where different registers of knowledge co-exist. Our cases clearly illustrate the contribution of amateurs to producing, not only data for analysis by scientists, but also in shaping research questions and directions. This line of questioning is a specific examination within the larger field of the ways in which digital tools are profoundly transforming the scientific knowledge production process. The presentations in our interdisciplinary panel will examine these new partnerships in the fields of climate research, biomolecular research, botany and ecology from the perspectives of both scientists and amateur contributors.

Coordinator: Dr. Lorna Heaton
Organization/Institution: Université de Montréal
Schedule: Monday, October 14, 2013 – 09:00 – 10:45
Room: 519AB

As part of this panel my colleagues (Lorna Heaton,Xiao Liu,Florence Millerand ) and I will present a paper on the Changing Naturalist Practices: Engagement Around a Giant Grasshopper at ONEM

source : ONEM

We present a case study of a participatory science project that involved collecting observations of a giant grasshopper and registering them online. Using a qualitative and ethnographically informed approach, we identify a number of factors that enabled widespread participation in this naturalist inquiry, organized by Observatoire Naturaliste des Écosystèmes Méditerranéens (ONEM). Our findings illustrate how the association’s double goals of stimulating an appreciation for nature and increasing scientific knowledge of the species under investigation are articulated as both naturalists and the general public participate. We propose a hybrid model of participatory science, neither scientist-driven nor grassroots-based, which originates in a commitment to ideals of openly accessible and free access to data, a “data commons.” This case illustrates how even low-level participation (crowdsourcing type) can produce significant results – not only in terms of generating scientific knowledge, but also in increasing public engagement with science and scientific literacy.

source :ONEM

10 Distinctive Qualities of Qualitative Research

Research Design Review

Researchers conduct qualitative research because they acknowledge the human condition and want to learn more, and think differently, about a research issue than what is usual from mostly numerical quantitative survey research data.  Not surprisingly, the unique nature otreehopperf qualitative inquiry is characterized by a distinctive set of attributes, all of which impact the design of qualitative research one way or the other.  The 10 unique attributes of qualitative research* are the:

  1. Absence of “truth” With all the emphasis in qualitative research on reality and the human condition, it might be expected that qualitative inquiry is in the business of garnering “the truth” from participants.  Instead of “truth,” the qualitative researcher collects information from which some level of knowledge can be gained.  The researcher does not acquire this information and knowledge in a vacuum but rather in a context and, in this way, the research data are a product…

View original post 821 more words

Keep a research journal: it is important

Anuja Cabraal

Very few people I come across keep a research journal, they often don’t even know about the concept. I want to share information about what to put in the research journal, and why I think it is important to keep on.

What is a research journal?

It is a record of everything that you are thinking about your research, or what you think at the time of your research. It is everything you are thinking about your research. It is not the place to take notes on your literature, but it is really a place where you can write down things that you are thinking about your research.

It is meant for YOUR EYES ONLY. It is not something you have to show your supervisor, your peers or boss. It is a place for reflection on your research. You should feel free to write what you want, without worry of…

View original post 644 more words