Posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:06:01
In reply to Re: The article, posted by danf on January 25, 2001, at 19:50:21
Just finished reading the article.
It seemed a good description of the board and some of the plusses and minuses of this format, kind of an overview of how it runs, some of the issues, etc. I think it will serve well as advice from an "old hand" to any "newbies" out there (Mental Health Professionals) who are thinking of starting some kind of online support group.
I think it is good to have this sort of descriptive, reflective paper--to reflect on the process, what has worked, what hasn't--as a way to step back and see how this medium is developing as a resource for mental health support.
Someone mentioned that it isn't exactly a research article. Even though it isn't an outcome study or controlled experiment, and even though it is rather an overview, I think it does contribute to the knowledge base because it steps back, describes the process, names phenomena that occur, reflects on the efficacy of problem solving, etc.
Dr. Bob, I don't know how much editing the journal did, but it seemed like there were a couple of passages where I would have wanted a bit more discussion: For example, on page 940, under "spectrum of posts", you seem to gloss over a primary focus of PB---med-related posts--- without describing or illustrating some "typical" patterns of information sharing and support. I think this is unfortunate because this is often (IMHO) the bulk of what happens here. I guess I would have liked to see an example ("typical") of some exchanges about medication and an example ("typical") of some exchanges of social support or information on non-med issues.
Another thing touched on briefly that I would have liked to see more discussion of is humor, both because it has been such an important part of the comeraderie, and because of the potential for misunderstandings, and because of how humor became a contended issue (although I can't remember if the big flare-up about humor happened after the time frame of the article).
Which brings me to another important topic that isn't covered: the issue of language--text communication--difficulty conveying nuances, attitude, humor, intention, etc. that have been discussed on the board many times, in addition to the ways that this format (board vs. chat, and text communication) may also facilitate growth, as was discussed when you posted the hypotheses a few months back.. I know this is a whole BIG topic in itself, but I would have liked to see it at least touched upon.
I guess I would also have to agree with whoever said, above, that a couple of the citations were long and perhaps not the best examples of "typical" exchanges.
Although you did use single letters to denote posters, the illustration of the frames format shows Vesper's screen name in full, and I am wondering if this was intentional or not.
Some of the things I mentioned here that I would have liked to see a bit more discussion of, would actually make great subjects to explore more in depth on their own.
Well, you asked, and I probably gave you more than you wanted to hear.
It was a good article.
poster:Noa
thread:326
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/348.html