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

[marion.hamm at gmx.net]

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