[CITASA] "Taken Out of Context" (my dissertation)
I just posted my dissertation online and since many folks from this
list have asked me to share it, I thought I'd post the link and
abstract here. If you have comments (especially critical feedback),
I'm all ears.
"Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics"
http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf
Abstract: As social network sites like MySpace and Facebook emerged,
American teenagers began adopting them as spaces to mark identity and
socialize with peers. Teens leveraged these sites for a wide array of
everyday social practices - gossiping, flirting, joking around,
sharing information, and simply hanging out. While social network
sites were predominantly used by teens as a peer-based social outlet,
the unchartered nature of these sites generated fear among adults.
This dissertation documents my 2.5-year ethnographic study of American
teens' engagement with social network sites and the ways in which
their participation supported and complicated three practices - self-
presentation, peer sociality, and negotiating adult society.
My analysis centers on how social network sites can be understood as
networked publics which are simultaneously (1) the space constructed
through networked technologies and (2) the imagined community that
emerges as a result of the intersection of people, technology, and
practice. Networked publics support many of the same practices as
unmediated publics, but their structural differences often inflect
practices in unique ways. Four properties - persistence,
searchability, replicability, and scalability - and three dynamics -
invisible audiences, collapsed contexts, and the blurring of public
and private - are examined and woven throughout the discussion.
While teenagers primarily leverage social network sites to engage in
common practices, the properties of these sites configured their
practices and teens were forced to contend with the resultant
dynamics. Often, in doing so, they reworked the technology for their
purposes. As teenagers learned to navigate social network sites, they
developed potent strategies for managing the complexities of and
social awkwardness incurred by these sites. Their strategies reveal
how new forms of social media are incorporated into everyday life,
complicating some practices and reinforcing others. New technologies
reshape public life, but teens' engagement also reconfigures the
technology itself.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - -
"taken out of context i must seem so strange"
- d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
musings :: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - -
"taken out of context i must seem so strange"
- d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
musings :: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts
Hello CITASA folks.
As many of you know, I work in an I-school (Information school) and am the
only sociologist on the faculty.
Recently I have been asked to define the "sociology of technology/ies" This
has been a surprisingly difficult task.
What I have been doing is staking out boundaries, stating what it is not,
therefore, what I'll have left is what it is, right?
So far I have removed the following, Sociology of Technology/ies may overlap
with--but is NOT science and technology studies, not the sociology of
science, not the sociology of knowledge, not the sociology of
communications, not social informatics, not a bunch of theories like
Structuration/Actor Network/SCOT/SST/Institutionalism/network science etc.
So, I ask you, what is left? What do we do that is unique? What are our core
competencies?
I've found a couple readings that have helped a bit, but I am hoping some of
you can aid me in my quest.
-
Shields, Mark A. 1997. ³Reinventing Technology in Social Theory.²
pages 187-216. Is a book chapter in...Current Perspectives in Social Theory:
1997 By Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ben Agger Published by Emerald Group Pub Ltd,
1997
- Saskia Sassen ³Towards a Sociology of Information Technology,² Current
Sociology, May 2002, Vol. 50(3): 365388 SAGE Publications
Hi Andrea,
Blaise Cronin recently had an article in JOIS on some of these overlaps.
I've found his bibliography useful in my work.
Cronin, B. (2008). The sociological turn in information science. Journal
of Information Science, 34(4), 465-475.
http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/465
Best,
Fred
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Andrea Tapia wrote:
Hello CITASA folks.
As many of you know, I work in an I-school (Information school) and am the
only sociologist on the faculty.
Recently I have been asked to define the "sociology of technology/ies" This
has been a surprisingly difficult task.
What I have been doing is staking out boundaries, stating what it is not,
therefore, what I'll have left is what it is, right?
So far I have removed the following, Sociology of Technology/ies may overlap
with--but is NOT science and technology studies, not the sociology of
science, not the sociology of knowledge, not the sociology of
communications, not social informatics, not a bunch of theories like
Structuration/Actor Network/SCOT/SST/Institutionalism/network science etc.
So, I ask you, what is left? What do we do that is unique? What are our core
competencies?
I've found a couple readings that have helped a bit, but I am hoping some of
you can aid me in my quest.
-
Shields, Mark A. 1997. ³Reinventing Technology in Social Theory.²
pages 187-216. Is a book chapter in...Current Perspectives in Social Theory:
1997 By Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ben Agger Published by Emerald Group Pub Ltd,
1997
- Saskia Sassen ³Towards a Sociology of Information Technology,² Current
Sociology, May 2002, Vol. 50(3): 365388 SAGE Publications
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
--
Fred Stutzman
Ph.D. Student and Teaching Fellow
School of Information and Library Science, UNC-Chapel Hill
fred@metalab.unc.edu | (919) 260-8508 | http://fstutzman.com/
I guess I am curious (and I know I am opening a can of worms here) why the
"sociology of technologies" is not some of all of those things, rather than
anything unique in and of itself? In other words, maybe it exists ONLY in
the overlaps. What's wrong with that, apart from the administrative
difficulties such an answer may cause?
Chris Anderson
--
PhD Student, Communications
Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
cwa2103@columbia.edu
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Andrea Tapia atapia@ist.psu.edu wrote:
Hello CITASA folks.
As many of you know, I work in an I-school (Information school) and am the
only sociologist on the faculty.
Recently I have been asked to define the "sociology of technology/ies" This
has been a surprisingly difficult task.
What I have been doing is staking out boundaries, stating what it is not,
therefore, what I'll have left is what it is, right?
So far I have removed the following, Sociology of Technology/ies may
overlap
with--but is NOT science and technology studies, not the sociology of
science, not the sociology of knowledge, not the sociology of
communications, not social informatics, not a bunch of theories like
Structuration/Actor Network/SCOT/SST/Institutionalism/network science etc.
So, I ask you, what is left? What do we do that is unique? What are our
core
competencies?
I've found a couple readings that have helped a bit, but I am hoping some
of
you can aid me in my quest.
-
Shields, Mark A. 1997. ³Reinventing Technology in Social Theory.²
pages 187-216. Is a book chapter in...Current Perspectives in Social
Theory:
1997 By Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ben Agger Published by Emerald Group Pub Ltd,
1997
- Saskia Sassen ³Towards a Sociology of Information Technology,²
Current
Sociology, May 2002, Vol. 50(3): 365388 SAGE Publications
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
I have to agree with Chris here -- seems you've thrown out everything that
makes a sociology of technology.
Andrea, what do you consider in the term "technology"? This may be as
ambiguous as asking what is meant by "community" but I think we have to start
with what "technology" is.
I've always like the management approach -- technology is a particular way of
getting work done. To me, it can included technologies of rules and
procedures, equipment, organizational structures, and systems (e.g.,
educational systems). Technology constrains not only how we do things, but
also how we think about doing things, and how we reward what gets done.
I would certainly include science and technology studies, sociology of science,
sociology of knowledge because they are particularly focused on systems of
production and organization -- from equipment to disciplinary practices. And
I'd include social informatics because it focuses on how information
technologies facilitate and constrain practices.
So the issue might be whether the sociology of technology (singular) you are
looking for is an overarching framework across these separate endeavors, or a
better name than social informatics for the case where technology is only taken
to be information and communication technology-based.
/Caroline
---- Original message ----
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:52:54 -0500
From: Chris Anderson cwa2103@columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [CITASA] Will the real sociology of technologies stand up?
To: communication and information technology section asa
I guess I am curious (and I know I am opening a can
of worms here) why the "sociology of technologies"
is not some of all of those things, rather than
anything unique in and of itself? In other words,
maybe it exists ONLY in the overlaps. What's wrong
with that, apart from the administrative
difficulties such an answer may cause?
Chris Anderson
--
PhD Student, Communications
Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
cwa2103@columbia.edu
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Andrea Tapia
atapia@ist.psu.edu wrote:
Hello CITASA folks.
As many of you know, I work in an I-school
(Information school) and am the
only sociologist on the faculty.
Recently I have been asked to define the
"sociology of technology/ies" This
has been a surprisingly difficult task.
What I have been doing is staking out boundaries,
stating what it is not,
therefore, what I'll have left is what it is,
right?
So far I have removed the following, Sociology of
Technology/ies may overlap
with--but is NOT science and technology studies,
not the sociology of
science, not the sociology of knowledge, not the
sociology of
communications, not social informatics, not a
bunch of theories like
Structuration/Actor
Network/SCOT/SST/Institutionalism/network science
etc.
So, I ask you, what is left? What do we do that is
unique? What are our core
competencies?
I've found a couple readings that have helped a
bit, but I am hoping some of
you can aid me in my quest.
1. Shields, Mark A. 1997. ³Reinventing
Technology in Social Theory.²
pages 187-216. Is a book chapter in...Current
Perspectives in Social Theory:
1997 By Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ben Agger Published
by Emerald Group Pub Ltd,
1997
2. Saskia Sassen ³Towards a Sociology of
Information Technology,² Current
Sociology, May 2002, Vol. 50(3): 365388 SAGE
Publications
_______________________________________________
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
Caroline Haythornthwaite
Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820
Mail will reach me at both haythorn@uiuc.edu AND haythorn@illinois.edu. NOTE: There is no 'u' before 'illinois' in this address.
Andrea,
You have raised some very interesting and useful
questions that deserve an answer, but keep in
mind that the historical context will shape the
answer, perhaps more than anything. For a
historical perspective from the point of view of
the CITASA community you should re-read the
articles in the Summer 2006 issue of the SOCIAL
SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, pages 139-171,
"Symposium on the history of CITASA." They show
how drastically the technology, as well as the
sociology of technology, changed in less than 20
years. In 10 to 20 years from now, the
technology, as well as the sociology of
technology, will be dramatically different,
perhaps something like Gibson's Neuromancer. But
in the present age of the Internet, i think no
one has done a better job at showing us what the
sociology of technology is than Manuel Castells
in his many books. If you can find a good
condensation of one of more of his books, it
might provide you with something close to
defining the essential elements of the "field."
Defining the skills is a different and more
difficult task. I have followed the social
movement to define "21st century skills" and some
of it has a very relevant emphasis upon critical
thinking about the technology itself, although
most of the literature is oriented toward
changing K-12 learning. I think you will find
some useful ideas from the point of view of
computer scientists in a 10 year old report from
the National Academy Press, Being Fluent with Information Technology:
http://www.amazon.com/Fluent-Information-Technology-Committee-Literacy/dp/030906399X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1233599513&sr=1-3
in the section on being analytical about the
complexity of technology and its impact. It's not
much, but it is more than you'll find in the
sociological literature in terms of analytical skills.
All the best,
Ron
At 11:28 AM 2/2/2009, Andrea Tapia wrote:
Hello CITASA folks.
As many of you know, I work in an I-school (Information school) and am the
only sociologist on the faculty.
Recently I have been asked to define the "sociology of technology/ies" This
has been a surprisingly difficult task.
What I have been doing is staking out boundaries, stating what it is not,
therefore, what I'll have left is what it is, right?
So far I have removed the following, Sociology of Technology/ies may overlap
with--but is NOT science and technology studies, not the sociology of
science, not the sociology of knowledge, not the sociology of
communications, not social informatics, not a bunch of theories like
Structuration/Actor Network/SCOT/SST/Institutionalism/network science etc.
So, I ask you, what is left? What do we do that is unique? What are our core
competencies?
I've found a couple readings that have helped a bit, but I am hoping some of
you can aid me in my quest.
-
Shields, Mark A. 1997. ³Reinventing Technology in Social Theory.²
pages 187-216. Is a book chapter in...Current Perspectives in Social Theory:
1997 By Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ben Agger Published by Emerald Group Pub Ltd,
1997
- Saskia Sassen ³Towards a Sociology of Information Technology,² Current
Sociology, May 2002, Vol. 50(3): 365388 SAGE Publications
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
Ronald E Anderson, Professor Emeritus, U. of
Minnesota, Mpls, MN 55455 rea@umn.edu
Web site: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~rea/ Blog: http://contexts.org/eye/
I would think that "the sociology of technology" (not-so-simply put)
would be:
Empirically and/or conceptually rigorous attempts to understand and/or
explain both technology and human, social interaction and/or
structure, as these tools, techniques and/or underlying
transformations that comprise technology(ies) relate to the various
manifestations of human, social interaction and/or structure.
David Touve
PhD Candidate, Management & Organization Studies
Vanderbilt University : Owen Graduate School of Management
david.touve@vanderbilt.edu
Office: +1 (615) 866-1286
http://www.davidtouve.com
On Feb 2, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Andrea Tapia wrote:
Hello CITASA folks.
As many of you know, I work in an I-school (Information school) and
am the
only sociologist on the faculty.
Recently I have been asked to define the "sociology of technology/
ies" This
has been a surprisingly difficult task.
What I have been doing is staking out boundaries, stating what it is
not,
therefore, what I'll have left is what it is, right?
So far I have removed the following, Sociology of Technology/ies may
overlap
with--but is NOT science and technology studies, not the sociology of
science, not the sociology of knowledge, not the sociology of
communications, not social informatics, not a bunch of theories like
Structuration/Actor Network/SCOT/SST/Institutionalism/network
science etc.
So, I ask you, what is left? What do we do that is unique? What are
our core
competencies?
I've found a couple readings that have helped a bit, but I am hoping
some of
you can aid me in my quest.
-
Shields, Mark A. 1997. “Reinventing Technology in Social
Theory.”
pages 187-216. Is a book chapter in...Current Perspectives in Social
Theory:
1997 By Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ben Agger Published by Emerald Group
Pub Ltd,
1997
- Saskia Sassen “Towards a Sociology of Information Technology,”
Current
Sociology, May 2002, Vol. 50(3): 365–388 SAGE Publications
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
Technology changes, people don't. (To quote sociologist Russ Neuman.)
In 10 years, we may study different technological forms, but the
people will be the same (same motivations, desires, etc.). Therefore I
would think that the sociological theories would be pretty much the
same. I don't mean that in a defeatist way, I mean that I hope our
theories are pretty good today and stand the test of time (and peer-
review!).
However I am not actually a sociologist, fwiw. (comm studies)
^_^ ndp...
On Feb 2, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Ron Anderson wrote:
Andrea,
You have raised some very interesting and useful questions that
deserve an answer, but keep in mind that the historical context will
shape the answer, perhaps more than anything. For a historical
perspective from the point of view of the CITASA community you
should re-read the articles in the Summer 2006 issue of the SOCIAL
SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, pages 139-171, "Symposium on the history of
CITASA." They show how drastically the technology, as well as the
sociology of technology, changed in less than 20 years. In 10 to 20
years from now, the technology, as well as the sociology of
technology, will be dramatically different, perhaps something like
Gibson's Neuromancer. But in the present age of the Internet, i
think no one has done a better job at showing us what the sociology
of technology is than Manuel Castells in his many books. If you can
find a good condensation of one of more of his books, it might
provide you with something close to defining the essential elements
of the "field."
Defining the skills is a different and more difficult task. I have
followed the social movement to define "21st century skills" and
some of it has a very relevant emphasis upon critical thinking about
the technology itself, although most of the literature is oriented
toward changing K-12 learning. I think you will find some useful
ideas from the point of view of computer scientists in a 10 year old
report from the National Academy Press, Being Fluent with
Information Technology:
http://www.amazon.com/Fluent-Information-Technology-Committee-Literacy/dp/030906399X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1233599513&sr=1-3
in the section on being analytical about the complexity of
technology and its impact. It's not much, but it is more than you'll
find in the sociological literature in terms of analytical skills.
All the best,
Ron
At 11:28 AM 2/2/2009, Andrea Tapia wrote:
Hello CITASA folks.
As many of you know, I work in an I-school (Information school) and
am the
only sociologist on the faculty.
Recently I have been asked to define the "sociology of technology/
ies" This
has been a surprisingly difficult task.
What I have been doing is staking out boundaries, stating what it
is not,
therefore, what I'll have left is what it is, right?
So far I have removed the following, Sociology of Technology/ies
may overlap
with--but is NOT science and technology studies, not the sociology of
science, not the sociology of knowledge, not the sociology of
communications, not social informatics, not a bunch of theories like
Structuration/Actor Network/SCOT/SST/Institutionalism/network
science etc.
So, I ask you, what is left? What do we do that is unique? What are
our core
competencies?
I've found a couple readings that have helped a bit, but I am
hoping some of
you can aid me in my quest.
-
Shields, Mark A. 1997. ³Reinventing Technology in Social
Theory.²
pages 187-216. Is a book chapter in...Current Perspectives in
Social Theory:
1997 By Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ben Agger Published by Emerald Group
Pub Ltd,
1997
- Saskia Sassen ³Towards a Sociology of Information
Technology,² Current
Sociology, May 2002, Vol. 50(3): 365 388 SAGE Publications
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
Ronald E Anderson, Professor Emeritus, U. of Minnesota, Mpls, MN
55455 rea@umn.edu
Web site: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~rea/ Blog: http://contexts.org/eye/
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D.
http://natpoor.blogspot.com/
Ron:
You and the group may be familiar with the National Academies Press;
their publications are generally searchable free on their website.
Your useful reference is available at their site:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6482#toc
Thanks for the tip. Keith Johnson
Andrea,
You have raised some very interesting and useful
questions that deserve an answer, but keep in
mind that the historical context will shape the
answer, perhaps more than anything. For a
historical perspective from the point of view of
the CITASA community you should re-read the
articles in the Summer 2006 issue of the SOCIAL
SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, pages 139-171,
"Symposium on the history of CITASA." They show
how drastically the technology, as well as the
sociology of technology, changed in less than 20
years. In 10 to 20 years from now, the
technology, as well as the sociology of
technology, will be dramatically different,
perhaps something like Gibson's Neuromancer. But
in the present age of the Internet, i think no
one has done a better job at showing us what the
sociology of technology is than Manuel Castells
in his many books. If you can find a good
condensation of one of more of his books, it
might provide you with something close to
defining the essential elements of the "field."
Defining the skills is a different and more
difficult task. I have followed the social
movement to define "21st century skills" and some
of it has a very relevant emphasis upon critical
thinking about the technology itself, although
most of the literature is oriented toward
changing K-12 learning. I think you will find
some useful ideas from the point of view of
computer scientists in a 10 year old report from
the National Academy Press, Being Fluent with Information Technology:
http://www.amazon.com/Fluent-Information-Technology-Committee-Literacy/dp/030906399X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1233599513&sr=1-3
in the section on being analytical about the
complexity of technology and its impact. It's not
much, but it is more than you'll find in the
sociological literature in terms of analytical skills.
All the best,
Ron
At 11:28 AM 2/2/2009, Andrea Tapia wrote:
Hello CITASA folks.
As many of you know, I work in an I-school (Information school) and am
the
only sociologist on the faculty.
Recently I have been asked to define the "sociology of technology/ies"
This
has been a surprisingly difficult task.
What I have been doing is staking out boundaries, stating what it is not,
therefore, what I'll have left is what it is, right?
So far I have removed the following, Sociology of Technology/ies may
overlap
with--but is NOT science and technology studies, not the sociology of
science, not the sociology of knowledge, not the sociology of
communications, not social informatics, not a bunch of theories like
Structuration/Actor Network/SCOT/SST/Institutionalism/network science
etc.
So, I ask you, what is left? What do we do that is unique? What are our
core
competencies?
I've found a couple readings that have helped a bit, but I am hoping some
of
you can aid me in my quest.
-
Shields, Mark A. 1997. ³Reinventing Technology in Social Theory.²
pages 187-216. Is a book chapter in...Current Perspectives in Social
Theory:
1997 By Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ben Agger Published by Emerald Group Pub
Ltd,
1997
- Saskia Sassen ³Towards a Sociology of Information Technology,²
Current
Sociology, May 2002, Vol. 50(3): 365388 SAGE Publications
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
Ronald E Anderson, Professor Emeritus, U. of
Minnesota, Mpls, MN 55455 rea@umn.edu
Web site: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~rea/ Blog:
http://contexts.org/eye/
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
Here here. I'm certainly not sure that we/us all can agree what
"technology" or "sociology" is anyway. Maybe overlaps are where we
meet, be it this list, as interlocutors or just downloading the same
.pdf for class.
Samuel Tobin
PhD Candidate: Sociology, NSSR
www.samueltobin.com
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Chris Anderson cwa2103@columbia.edu wrote:
I guess I am curious (and I know I am opening a can of worms here) why the
"sociology of technologies" is not some of all of those things, rather than
anything unique in and of itself? In other words, maybe it exists ONLY in
the overlaps. What's wrong with that, apart from the administrative
difficulties such an answer may cause?
Chris Anderson
--
PhD Student, Communications
Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
cwa2103@columbia.edu
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Andrea Tapia atapia@ist.psu.edu wrote:
Hello CITASA folks.
As many of you know, I work in an I-school (Information school) and am the
only sociologist on the faculty.
Recently I have been asked to define the "sociology of technology/ies"
This
has been a surprisingly difficult task.
What I have been doing is staking out boundaries, stating what it is not,
therefore, what I'll have left is what it is, right?
So far I have removed the following, Sociology of Technology/ies may
overlap
with--but is NOT science and technology studies, not the sociology of
science, not the sociology of knowledge, not the sociology of
communications, not social informatics, not a bunch of theories like
Structuration/Actor Network/SCOT/SST/Institutionalism/network science etc.
So, I ask you, what is left? What do we do that is unique? What are our
core
competencies?
I've found a couple readings that have helped a bit, but I am hoping some
of
you can aid me in my quest.
-
Shields, Mark A. 1997. ³Reinventing Technology in Social Theory.²
pages 187-216. Is a book chapter in...Current Perspectives in Social
Theory:
1997 By Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ben Agger Published by Emerald Group Pub Ltd,
1997
- Saskia Sassen ³Towards a Sociology of Information Technology,²
Current
Sociology, May 2002, Vol. 50(3): 365388 SAGE Publications
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org