[alt-media-res] Concerns raised about Alt- Media -res projectat september's IMC London meeting.

[marion.hamm at gmx.net]

Hi Zoe, Steffen, and all, 

Thanks for your emails. I would like to add my view to this very fascinating exchange.

Steffen says:  "Right from the start we have of course been greeted with false accusations and great suspicions from some individuals." 

I gather this was before i got involved, so I don't know what these accusations and suspicions were. Whatever it was (do you want to elaborate?), I am sorry if this is what led to the approach I have been criticising from the start - to rely on individual contacts instead of engaging in an open process with the network. By taking this choice, alt-media-res deprived itself from the possibility to work out together with actors in this network how to bring together the often overlapping practices of research and activism. 

I only learnded from Zoes emails that the plan to work on an imc-uk or imc-london subproject has been "scaled down if not cut altogether". It was pointed out to me repeatedly that all of you wanted to work on this part of the project (in the december meeting, at both knowledgelabs, when i uploaded the chronology...). It was in your original funding proposal, and it has been put on your wiki this summer as well. But of course, research is dynamic and plans change. 

Zoe says that the sub-project on london imc was scaled down because of "objections in parts of the lists-based uk indymedia network". What is the lists based indymedia network? I can assure you that alt-media-res was never discussed on any imc-uk list, simply because it was never introduced.

Zoe, you also wrote that "nobody has raised any specific problems with me about our way of working, so it would be nice to see any specific questions or problems before going any further...?"

I did repeatedly raise my concerns, specifically about the decision of alt-media-res not to engage with the Uk Indymedia network, although this was - according to the information available to me - going to be a major case study. I raised these concerns by email, in the one alt-media-res meeting I participated in, per telephone with Steffen and face-to-face with you after an indymedia london meeting. Unfortunately, you didn't have time to discuss it more in-depth.

I would have liked an open discussion about this research releationsship. But I could not do much since there is no public online forum where alt-media-res and indymedia people could engage. Alt-media-res has not acknowledged the indymedia lists as a platform to engage with for one and a half years, the indymedia network has not been invited to participate in any exchange with alt-media-res.

I find it really interesting what is going on here. Tony from indymedia uk is concerned about the practices of the alt-media-res project, without knowing any of the work you are doing. This because you haven't told him or the indymedia network. Indymedia can't possibly be aware of every single group wanting to research indymedia. There are far too many, as indymedia is an interesting topic to study as well as an interesting object for funding bodies. 

Likewise, people from alt-media-res seem to feel under pressure, i am not quite sure from whom. Maybe from me, but apparently this started before i was invited to participate. Is it "Indymedia" that you feel pressured by? Is it individuals? Is it a specific way of communicating? The work indymedia volunteers do? A technology-mindedness? Political views? At the few occasions we met, I very strongly felt a tangible sense of defensiveness, an assumption on alt-media-res side that "they don't want to work with us". This although the indymedia network (global, regional or local) had never been approached. 

I guess there is a circle of assumptions at work - the alt-media group assumed that indymedia doesn't want to work with them, as a consequence didn't engage with it, which in turn, when the existence of alt-media-res filters through, confirms general assumptions in the indymedia uk network about researchers just working ABOUT rather than WITH indymedia, which again leads to a confirmation of the alt-media-res assumption that "they don't want to work with us". 

Of course, every researcher into social movements will face suspicions against his work at some point. Even wider, people in research fields tend to be reluctant to give up control about the knowledge that is being produced about it. This is just something most fieldworkers have to deal with.

As i also said at the beginning of my involvement here, i think alt-media-res had large potential to work with the indymedia network, based on the mixed academic and activist backgrounds that would have been able to interact.

Best
Marion




-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:05:33 +0100
Von: "zoe" <zoe at esemplastic.net>
An: marion.hamm at gmx.net
Betreff: Re: [alt-media-res] Concerns raised about Alt- Media -res projectat	september\'s IMC London meeting.

> hello
> 
> as far as I know, marion's work remains the only element of the research
> that was looking at london indymedia, and as she says
> 
> "I did introduce my sub-project, the imc-uk chronology, to imc-uk-process
> and included a link to my original proposal to alt-media-res on the
> plentyfact wiki [1], as well as a link to the alt-media-res faqs. "
> 
> so it seems that the relevant information has been passed to a relevant
> list. I know that lots of people also spoke to each other informally - as
> indumedia works best - and now this collaboration resulted in the creation
> of a nice chronology for general interest and use..  also steffen is now
> drafting something to ensure that the latest relevant information can be
> forwarded to anyone who missed the earlier communications..
> 
> I would suggest that it is not realistic for us as a group to attempt to
> deal in depth with every question, concern or misunderstanding raised by
> anyone connected to imc or any other network. I think I'm not alone in
> finding it damaging to morale and distracting from ongoing work. would it
> be
> sufficient in future for us each to point anyone raising concerns to the
> wiki for an idea of what we are actually up to, and/or explain the
> evolving
> nature of the project on a one to one basis?
> 
> cheers all
> 
> xz
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <marion.hamm at gmx.net>
> 
> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [alt-media-res] Concerns raised about Alt- Media -res
> projectat
> september's IMC London meeting.
> 
> 
> Hi Pennie and all,
> 
> it's great that the alt-media-res project is renewing its efforts to
> reflect
> its relationship to the indymedia network.
> 
> Of course the first question is: Is there a relationship between the
> alt-media-res group and the indymedia network at all? At the first meeting
> of alt-media-res I participated in (December 2001), all of you said you
> wanted to research IMC-UK. This was documented in the minutes on the
> plentyfact wiki [1]. Now there is a plan to compile "a global history of
> Indymedia, with specific focus on London" [2]. The ESRC funding was
> granted
> for a project involving several indymedia case studies (although initial
> research plans can change).
> 
> All this establishes a relationship, albeit an asymetric one:
> alt-media-res
> knows about this relationship, while the indymedia network - apart from
> some individuals - doesn't.
> 
> Pennie, you asked if alt-media-res was introduced on the relevant
> indymedia
> lists. You say that "there was a discussion amongst the alt-res media
> group
> that this was to happen".
> 
> Afaik, it did not happen, as there was no consensus that an introduction
> was
> necessary. I made it clear in the first meeting I had with alt-media-res
> (Dec 05) that I would not facilitate access to the indymedia network as a
> research field for alt-media-res, and that it would be better if
> alt-media-res organises its own entry to indymedia (or indymedia uk) as a
> research field(documented on the plentyfact wiki [1]).
> 
> However, I initiated the discussion amongst the alt-media-res group on an
> introduction of alt-media-res to the indymedia network (I am not familiar
> with any other parts of alt-media-res). The entry to the field of research
> is a crucial phase for anyone doing field research, too important to
> remain
> unreflected.
> 
> In the framework of an, as you call it, "activist research" project which,
> I
> would assume, acts in solidarity and collaboration with the movements it
> researches, transparency and a clear introduction of the research project
> are crucial: methodologically, politically and ethically.
> The most obvious place for such an introduction to the indymedia network
> would be its publicly archived mailing lists. These lists are accessible
> for
> everyone who is interested, individual mails can be pointed to, people can
> discuss issues arising on lists offline.
> 
> I took it for granted that alt-media-res would be introduced either to the
> global indymedia network or to the imc-uk network, depending on the
> alt-media-res research design. I tried to help alt-media-res understand
> how "research" is being discussed within the wider indymedia network by
> providing links and explanations. I even provided a draft of an
> introduction
> as it would look from my point of view.
> 
> The reactions to my repeated requests for alt-media-res to introduce
> itself
> were contradictory. They ranged from no comment to a clear dismissal of my
> claim (that researchers who want to research indymedia should inform the
> relevant indymedia networks) as inappropriate or unnecessary for this
> project. Most agreed in theory that an introduction would be good
> (fantastic
> even), but didnt take any steps towards making it happen.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't provide links to these discussions, because
> alt-media-res chose to have them on a private cc-list instead of the
> publicly archived mailing list. When I am back in London, I can dig up
> those
> mails and post them here.
> 
> It became clear to me that this project would not take an open and
> transparent approach to the indymedia network as its research field in
> the near future. I realised that it would be very difficult if not
> impossible to develop a mutually beneficial research project involving
> indymedia and alt-media-res, simply because alt-media-res did not adress
> the
> indymedia network. No information was available on any indymedia list
> about
> alt-media-res. Therefore, indymedia as a network could not engage with
> alt-media-res, simply because it did not know that alt-media-res exists.
> The
> alt-media-res core group did not take steps to change this situation.
> 
> This is when I withdrew from the project. After a few telephone
> conversations with Steffen and in agreement with him, I changed my
> status from "one of the people who run this project" to "research
> associate". I made clear that I was willing to contribute my own research
> papers to the project, but that I could not take any responsibility for
> the
> external representation of the project and the way it relates or doesn't
> relate to indymedia.
> When I was invited to join the project, the stage, i.e. the internal
> process of alt-media-res and its way of doing research, was already set.
> Regarding indymedia, it was set in a way that is inacceptable for me. So
> far, it contradicts both my ethos as an ethnographer and my politics as an
> activist.
> 
> This doesn't mean that alt-media-res' research into indymedia is
> inacceptable within the traditional framework of research. It simply means
> that as far as I can see, its methodology is tied to traditional knowledge
> production rather than politically progressive methodological concepts
> like, for example, the operaist workers self-enquiry [3].
> 
> I did introduce my sub-project, the imc-uk chronology, to imc-uk-process
> and
> included a link to my original proposal to alt-media-res on the plentyfact
> wiki [1], as well as a link to the alt-media-res faqs.
> 
> After finishing the funded work on the chronology, I sent it to
> alt-media-res inviting you to add to it, uploaded it to the indymedia
> wiki, and informed imc-uk-process. I had some positive feedback about
> the chronology, and yossarian from imc uk wrote a web-interface for it.
> This was presented to imc-uk-process. When the project took shape, I
> sent a link to alt-media-res. [4]
> 
> By the way, I did not receive payment for my work in establishing the
> first alt-media-res wiki or the imc-uk chronology. Andre, I returned the
> completed forms you required a few months ago. It was agreed that I
> would be paid for the chronology in July, but I did not hear back from
> you. Steffen informed me that the plan is still to pay me for my work on
> the
> chronology.
> 
> In August 06, I re-submitted to alt-media-res a detailed funding proposal
> for expenses occured through research for my phd (ICT use in social
> movements), in exchange for my own research-based articles and
> conference presentations as deliverables for alt-media-res.
> 
> best
> Marion
> 
> 
> Notes:
> 
> [1] Some resources were not transferred when alt-media-res moved its wiki
> >from plentyfact to clearerchannel.
> 
> [2] see the public alt-media-res wiki
> http://alt-media-res.clearerchannel.org/public/index.php?title=London
> 
> [3] A collection of articles on militant research is here:
> http://eipcp.net/transversal/0406. See especially the articles by
> Antonella Corsani and Marta Malo de Molina.
> 
> [4] mail to alt-media-res about the imc uk chronology, including links to
> my
> mails to indymedia uk lists:
> https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/alt-media-res/2006-September/000054.html
> 
> 
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:33:32 +0100
> Von: devlishmay at aktivix.org
> An: steffen boehm <steffen at ESSEX.AC.UK>, moreanon at gmail.com,
> Andre.Spicer at wbs.ac.uk
> Betreff: [alt-media-res] Concerns raised about Alt- Media -res project at
> september\'s IMC London meeting.
> 
> >
> > Hey everybody
> >
> > Last night I went to the Indy media London meeting and in the course of
> > the
> > discussion, Tony one of the founders of IMC UK expressed concerns that
> we
> > have
> > proposed a project researching Indymedia UKk and London  and recieved a
> "
> > big
> > chunk of funding" but have not presented the project to the  London
> > collective.
> > Or  proposed the project to any of the IMC lists.
> > He was angry about this because he felt that we have used the name and
> > hard work
> > of Indy media volunteers to get funding for our own research aims.
> > I looked at the intial proposal and I really want to reassure him about
> > our own
> > project processes and accountability.
> > He found our intial proposal on line, and was surprised that we had not
> > been in
> > touch.
> >  This was the e mail that I sent to Tony:
> >
> > Dear Tony,
> > Here is a link to the FAQ's about the alt-media-res project,
> >   http://alt-media-res.clearerchannel.org/public/index.php?title=FAQ
> > This is public.
> > I need to ask Marion about whether or not our wiki for the project was
> > forwarded
> > to relevant indy lists, there was a discussion amongst the alt-res media
> > group
> > that this was to happen but I am not sure if it did happen.
> > Marion did recieve some funding from the project for a chronology of
> > Indymedia.
> > The project has evolved into interviewing people involved in alternative
> > media
> > projects and is still on going.
> > Sian Sullian and Andre Spicer interviewed  Indy media people in Toronto
> > about
> > their involvement and how they saw IMC.
> > Students from UEA have taken on similar tasks, with regard to
> interviewing
> > IMC
> > people in Rossport.
> > All of this is about to be put into the wiki.
> > I have spoken to Sian and she wondered if you would like to meet up with
> > zoe,
> > and myself to clarify things further.
> > I have copied this e mail to zoe and Sian I have contacted them about
> your
> > issues with our process , I am concerned about how you see this project
> > and
> > would like very much to reassure you.
> > Best
> > Pennie
> >
> > But the discussion for me raises important questions about how we
> approach
> > a net
> > work and I wonder about how we have approached indymedia and have we
> done
> > this
> > in the best way for the project?
> > Also  what we can do to allay Tony's concerns?
> > I do feel to a certain extent that he has a point.
> > What should we do about this?
> > As the project is on going, we need to look at why we have had anxieties
> > about
> > approaching Indymedia UK Kollectives, and why this has seemed so
> daunting?
> > I would like to have any records, of where we have proposed this project
> > to IMC
> > lists.
> > I guess we need to communicate better because I am in a postion where I
> > don't
> > know how to defend the project because I am not clear on all its
> > directions.
> > best
> > Penniexx
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
> Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer

-- 
GMX DSL-Flatrate 0,- Euro* - Überall, wo DSL verfügbar ist!
NEU: Jetzt bis zu 16.000 kBit/s! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl