My two pieces about methodology and policies written before the grant application was praised by my supervisors. Now the focus is shifted to physical methodology and resilience.
We agreed that I should write something on resilience. I read something on this at the beginning of my project. However my concept of the project has changed much since then. I think I will have to seek some different literatures from those I read before.
Some concepts, such as adaptive cycles, need more clarification. The most important objective is to find out feasible models and indicators for assessing rangeland resilience.
2007年2月24日星期六
2007年2月21日星期三
Just what have they learnt from China?
-- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - BillionTree Campaign Site --
I read the news from the EarthTrends Blog. Some people may find this campaign exciting but I feel a bit uneasy about this.
Such pledge reminds me of some mass environmental movements used to take place in China. My memory about planting trees is not so pleasant. The result of China's tree-planting campaign is a total failure -- failed to stop sand, managed to drain water.
The reason is simple: trees do not grow everywhere and should not be grown everywhere. It can become a destructive factor in certain ecosystems, especially those heavily managed by human, e.g. rangelands. On the other hand, trees artificially planted often need intensive care, without which they will just die and contribute to carbon emission instead of absorbing it.
I can see that UNEP is trying to mobilise the people -- anyone with some soil can plant a tree, no matter where it is. However, it runs contrarily with land management policies in many places in EU; it is not practical in already crowded Asia; it is a burden for many people in Africa and South America. In places not adequate it can take away considerable water. The target of 1 billion trees is just too ambitious. Up to when I am writing, the number of trees planted is just about half a million, without stating how many survived.
I cannot find any endorsement from ecologists on the campaign's website nor any sound ecological rationale behind it. If they really want to compensate for trees being cut down in Amazon they should stop the saws instead of swing the shovels, or at least provide a plan about where and when to plant trees. This campaign is to me too ambiguous, too ad hoc, and too irrational to be an UNEP initiative. If they want to learn mass movement from China they should also learn about the consequence.
I read the news from the EarthTrends Blog. Some people may find this campaign exciting but I feel a bit uneasy about this.
Such pledge reminds me of some mass environmental movements used to take place in China. My memory about planting trees is not so pleasant. The result of China's tree-planting campaign is a total failure -- failed to stop sand, managed to drain water.
The reason is simple: trees do not grow everywhere and should not be grown everywhere. It can become a destructive factor in certain ecosystems, especially those heavily managed by human, e.g. rangelands. On the other hand, trees artificially planted often need intensive care, without which they will just die and contribute to carbon emission instead of absorbing it.
I can see that UNEP is trying to mobilise the people -- anyone with some soil can plant a tree, no matter where it is. However, it runs contrarily with land management policies in many places in EU; it is not practical in already crowded Asia; it is a burden for many people in Africa and South America. In places not adequate it can take away considerable water. The target of 1 billion trees is just too ambitious. Up to when I am writing, the number of trees planted is just about half a million, without stating how many survived.
I cannot find any endorsement from ecologists on the campaign's website nor any sound ecological rationale behind it. If they really want to compensate for trees being cut down in Amazon they should stop the saws instead of swing the shovels, or at least provide a plan about where and when to plant trees. This campaign is to me too ambiguous, too ad hoc, and too irrational to be an UNEP initiative. If they want to learn mass movement from China they should also learn about the consequence.
2007年2月17日星期六
年啊年
凌晨4点，正在做一个跟冰有关的梦的我被尖利的警报声吵醒。因为正做梦，醒得也就比较快。待我穿好衣服走到院子里，只见蓝蓝的天空中飘着朵朵白云，大地上绿草如茵，小朋友们强睁着惺忪的睡眼愉快地聊天，没有烟也没有火，又是一次假警报。我在诺丁汉大学管理的研究生宿舍住宿的近一年半时间里，共跑火警16.5次（一次刚穿好鞋要出门警报声停了），没有一次看见过明火。宿舍管理人员的解释是请大家做饭的时候注意通风，以免油烟造成假警报云云。可是这凌晨4点谁做饭啊，莫非中国炒菜的油烟飘到英国来了？有个哥们便跟他隔壁的女孩子说，他觉得本公寓一定有一些超自然的存在，“故意地“引起假警报。我觉得这哥们一定是罗马尼亚人，只有出产达Q拉伯爵的国度的人才会有这么古灵精怪的想法。我倒一直觉得，这么频繁的假警报是校方的一个阴谋，同时起到了训练我们应付突发情况和增进邻里交往的作用。
过了一会儿消防队的大叔们检查过一遍，确认他们又白跑了一趟，便回去了，我们也各自回窝。刚躺下十分钟，警报又恶作剧般地响了两次，搞得我也有点相信那哥们的话了。
迷迷糊糊地睡到被闹钟叫醒，居然还倍儿精神，继续打开 vim 干活。到中午，开始逐个给家人亲戚打电话。下午跟 wenmang 聊的时候，发现自己完全不像情人节时候那么郁闷，想了一下觉得原因是这样：情人节是希望按照别人的方式过而没有条件，总觉得自己孤身在外，茕茕孑立，不免伤怀；而过年时就算有天大的不爽，也要拿出高高兴兴的样子来，把年过了，再加上我们这些不知年的传统为何物的小一辈人，一个人到处打打电话，发发短信也能拜年拜得不亦乐乎，也没有什么郁闷可言。
父母要求晚上找个中餐馆吃顿年夜饭，倒是比较难做到。谁也不认识，在餐馆里闷头狂吃，我看也不比借酒浇愁的形像好多少。想了想还是自力更生，买了鸡买了鱼，还买了饺子，自己张罗了一顿，吃得满嘴冒油，两个巨大的鸡腿只吃掉了一个，如果两个都并一顿吃了只怕现在（晚9点）还抱着滚圆的肚子倒在地上抽搐。晚饭时惊闻外面焰火阵阵，英国人还是很重视各族群的习俗的。
作为一个护照仍被英国官员扣留，没法回家过年的人，我想能过上这样一个年也算是不错了。虽然 displaced 的失落总是有的，不过自己的朋友们往往也是天各一方，在这个日子里互相问候一下，失落感也就少一点。只可怜我的父母，在这个日子里只能听到我和 wenmang 在电话里问候他们，不知道会不会觉得有些冷清。但愿明年春节能回家过年。
过了一会儿消防队的大叔们检查过一遍，确认他们又白跑了一趟，便回去了，我们也各自回窝。刚躺下十分钟，警报又恶作剧般地响了两次，搞得我也有点相信那哥们的话了。
迷迷糊糊地睡到被闹钟叫醒，居然还倍儿精神，继续打开 vim 干活。到中午，开始逐个给家人亲戚打电话。下午跟 wenmang 聊的时候，发现自己完全不像情人节时候那么郁闷，想了一下觉得原因是这样：情人节是希望按照别人的方式过而没有条件，总觉得自己孤身在外，茕茕孑立，不免伤怀；而过年时就算有天大的不爽，也要拿出高高兴兴的样子来，把年过了，再加上我们这些不知年的传统为何物的小一辈人，一个人到处打打电话，发发短信也能拜年拜得不亦乐乎，也没有什么郁闷可言。
父母要求晚上找个中餐馆吃顿年夜饭，倒是比较难做到。谁也不认识，在餐馆里闷头狂吃，我看也不比借酒浇愁的形像好多少。想了想还是自力更生，买了鸡买了鱼，还买了饺子，自己张罗了一顿，吃得满嘴冒油，两个巨大的鸡腿只吃掉了一个，如果两个都并一顿吃了只怕现在（晚9点）还抱着滚圆的肚子倒在地上抽搐。晚饭时惊闻外面焰火阵阵，英国人还是很重视各族群的习俗的。
作为一个护照仍被英国官员扣留，没法回家过年的人，我想能过上这样一个年也算是不错了。虽然 displaced 的失落总是有的，不过自己的朋友们往往也是天各一方，在这个日子里互相问候一下，失落感也就少一点。只可怜我的父母，在这个日子里只能听到我和 wenmang 在电话里问候他们，不知道会不会觉得有些冷清。但愿明年春节能回家过年。
Week 20: A new (?) endeavour
I finally finished writing the application document for the fieldwork grant and can focus my energy fully on research methodology and other issues. However, I find with frustration that I cannot progress much further from what I have done in the past weeks.
It is possible, that I have already obtained enough general knowledge about remote sensing, and to study further and deeper will not be feasible without some actual work on real data. However I still find I know too little about CORONA and mixed-scale image interpretation.
The training at the end of the week about observation methods in ethnography is not more helpful than the previous introduction course which covered other topics. However I still managed to get a flavour about observation from the course. It seems that structured observation will not be suitable for the project as I have no detailed idea of what I am going to observe. On the other hand, observing a group in a different culture may be very misleading. I had better have a Tibetan interpreter by then.
I got my feedback for the last two essays for Critical Human Geography course. The marks are both better than I expected. Worth a small celebration and I am more confident about finishing the other two.
It is possible, that I have already obtained enough general knowledge about remote sensing, and to study further and deeper will not be feasible without some actual work on real data. However I still find I know too little about CORONA and mixed-scale image interpretation.
The training at the end of the week about observation methods in ethnography is not more helpful than the previous introduction course which covered other topics. However I still managed to get a flavour about observation from the course. It seems that structured observation will not be suitable for the project as I have no detailed idea of what I am going to observe. On the other hand, observing a group in a different culture may be very misleading. I had better have a Tibetan interpreter by then.
I got my feedback for the last two essays for Critical Human Geography course. The marks are both better than I expected. Worth a small celebration and I am more confident about finishing the other two.
2007年2月16日星期五
Indian voices and my (our) voices
Indian voices : Article : Nature
While the scientists in India are criticised for their inaction in policy debates, it still remains a question that whether Chinese scientists really have their voices heard by the public and policy makers.
The NGOs in China are not as influent as those in India, not to mention in EU and in the US. Therefore a scientist must seek the government if (s)he wants to be involved in the policy making process using his (her) knowledge. But currently I do not think scientists in China are exerting their expertise enough to influence policy making. The causes could be:
The solution of the problem largely lies in the researchers' effort. First of all, I think both "hard" and "soft" scientists should realise their studies' importance in terms of social effects. They should also reach out to the public and tell them their scientific interpretation on policies and trends (which may not be necessarily good, but people should be informed). Many people do not like Zuoxiu He, but I think China lacks such scientists/lobbists.
On the other hand, the policy making process should be based on scientific evidences and principle of precautionary rather than on authorities and experiences. This could be too complicated for a blog entry to elaborate so I will not extend it any more.
Thirdly, the public can form lobby groups when they feel their interests may be impaired by the policy proposed. There is also misbelief in science to be broken. The poorly educated Americans do not believe in science, but this indeed enables them to argue with scientists with full confidence, and sometimes they proved right. An open debate will bring knowledge to both sides, given it is properly moderated.
In today's China scientists (in Chinese language context) are considered as half elite, half public, therefore I believe they can act well as the transitional layer in the elite-public interaction. As the voice now is mainly dominated by elite-scholars, it is more vital for other scientists and researchers to make themselves heard.
While the scientists in India are criticised for their inaction in policy debates, it still remains a question that whether Chinese scientists really have their voices heard by the public and policy makers.
The NGOs in China are not as influent as those in India, not to mention in EU and in the US. Therefore a scientist must seek the government if (s)he wants to be involved in the policy making process using his (her) knowledge. But currently I do not think scientists in China are exerting their expertise enough to influence policy making. The causes could be:
- that many researchers consider participating in policy-making kind of diversion from their research, and are not willing to do this. I may be well in this category, too.
- that researchers do not consider fully their studies' policy implications. China is traditionally more focused on "hard" science research and there is little training on proper conduct of science, and understanding of science-social relationships.
- that researchers do not engage non-academic groups actively. This is being changed in recent years, but I do not think is enough. This is the only common problem of China and India on this issue that I can think of.
- that the policy-making process is not "scholar-friendly". This is illustrated by the hydrology engineering project in Yuanmingyuan Park taken place in 2005. The role of advisor is dominated by senior academics and scholar-turned-officials rather than ecologists (very few in China at the moment, I admit) who are doing actual work.
The solution of the problem largely lies in the researchers' effort. First of all, I think both "hard" and "soft" scientists should realise their studies' importance in terms of social effects. They should also reach out to the public and tell them their scientific interpretation on policies and trends (which may not be necessarily good, but people should be informed). Many people do not like Zuoxiu He, but I think China lacks such scientists/lobbists.
On the other hand, the policy making process should be based on scientific evidences and principle of precautionary rather than on authorities and experiences. This could be too complicated for a blog entry to elaborate so I will not extend it any more.
Thirdly, the public can form lobby groups when they feel their interests may be impaired by the policy proposed. There is also misbelief in science to be broken. The poorly educated Americans do not believe in science, but this indeed enables them to argue with scientists with full confidence, and sometimes they proved right. An open debate will bring knowledge to both sides, given it is properly moderated.
In today's China scientists (in Chinese language context) are considered as half elite, half public, therefore I believe they can act well as the transitional layer in the elite-public interaction. As the voice now is mainly dominated by elite-scholars, it is more vital for other scientists and researchers to make themselves heard.
2007年2月14日星期三
Blog: 功能增强
因为一大早起来就比较郁闷，所以早上也没干多少活，大部分时间用来折腾 blog 了。通过安装若干插件和对模板代码的少量 hack，目前 blog 有这样一些变化：
欢迎多提意见。
- 标题下方加入了令人无语的 tagline；
- sidebar 加入了 Profile 一项；
- 申请了 gravatar 的头像服务并通过插件在 blog 中提供支持。如果发表评论时提供了 e-mail 地址并用这个地址在 gravatar 注册过，则显示评论时也会显示对应的 "Global Recognized Avatar"。e-mail 地址不会显示在页面上，不用担心被盗，请放心使用～
- 你们看不到的：管理界面中批量修改 entry 所在分类属性的插件；
- 最后也是最重要的，改进了分类显示，并提供了分类专门的 rss 的链接。
欢迎多提意见。
Deleuze: rhizome
I am reading a chapter in Deleuze and Guattari (1988) about this concept, although I have not found this concept particularly useful from what I have read so far. Other than prevailing dichotomic approach to describing the world, Deleuze proposes rhizome, which is very diverse and dynamic. It can have multiple connections with a range of subjects and objects. On the other hand it has no points or positions within itself. Most people can argue that this is basically the nature of almost everything, and rhizome cannot give more insights than reductionist dichotomies.
However, the latter characteristics of rhizome may be more interesting: multiplicity, asignification of rupture, nature of cartography. It is heterogeneous yet can be divided, illustratable yet untraceable.
Deleuze also linked the idea of rhizome to "the East". Compared to Western attachment to tree, the Eastern culture is somewhat like grass: the rhizome. But this may be another kind of dualism.
The form of the book itself is quite subtle, even in some kind of chaos. Rhizome may never be fully understood in the context of such form and Western writings -- they are not abstract enough. It does provide a way of thinking, though maybe not explaining or interpreting. I can look at many, almost any, things as rhizomes, but once I begin to explain something using this perspective, it is not rhizome any more, at least in certain scales.
There are sociology researches trying to use rhizome in the formation of their theories. But I think to grasp the idea, one has to solidify it to some point. Therefore to some extent it is not rhizome anymore! This is a bit mysticism but currently I cannot better understand this....
However, the latter characteristics of rhizome may be more interesting: multiplicity, asignification of rupture, nature of cartography. It is heterogeneous yet can be divided, illustratable yet untraceable.
Deleuze also linked the idea of rhizome to "the East". Compared to Western attachment to tree, the Eastern culture is somewhat like grass: the rhizome. But this may be another kind of dualism.
The form of the book itself is quite subtle, even in some kind of chaos. Rhizome may never be fully understood in the context of such form and Western writings -- they are not abstract enough. It does provide a way of thinking, though maybe not explaining or interpreting. I can look at many, almost any, things as rhizomes, but once I begin to explain something using this perspective, it is not rhizome any more, at least in certain scales.
There are sociology researches trying to use rhizome in the formation of their theories. But I think to grasp the idea, one has to solidify it to some point. Therefore to some extent it is not rhizome anymore! This is a bit mysticism but currently I cannot better understand this....
2007年2月10日星期六
Week 19: Fast forward
The application for grant is going on. Although it has been edited thoroughly for a few times, there seems always to be some thing to add, something to rephrase, and something that are not looking good but I do not know what to do with it. However, I think there is progress and the document is almost ready to be sent.
I went on to spend some time on remote sensing and models of resilience. Both would be needed if I am going to impress them in the interview, I think. Besides, my thesis also needs sections on these topics. As I am merely browsing literature and record things that are interest, there is little difficulty in this. However, I believe that once I am in the field there will be much more troubles. On the other hand, maybe I am using it as an escape from the tedious editing work? I am not sure.
In the following months I will need to prepare the field work, as well as consider my proposal and annual report. I may well write them back in China, which means I will need to write a lot of notes here.
I went on to spend some time on remote sensing and models of resilience. Both would be needed if I am going to impress them in the interview, I think. Besides, my thesis also needs sections on these topics. As I am merely browsing literature and record things that are interest, there is little difficulty in this. However, I believe that once I am in the field there will be much more troubles. On the other hand, maybe I am using it as an escape from the tedious editing work? I am not sure.
In the following months I will need to prepare the field work, as well as consider my proposal and annual report. I may well write them back in China, which means I will need to write a lot of notes here.
2007年2月7日星期三
Some issues on resilience
From the blooming literature on resilience and its modelling, perhaps we can say resilience study is becoming more mature and practical in recent years. There seems to be some patterns to follow when one is doing resilience study: identify the actors, drivers, limiting factors and pressures, then establish the conceptual model, then build mathematical models, and then see what happens when you get the data. However, I cannot find many articles questioning the validity of this mode of research. One possible solution to the situation, is to study the same area with two independent modelling process, preferably by two researchers, and see if the results are comparable. I would like to invite anyone interested in this topic to do this with me after I get my PhD in three years.
I have encountered some excellent models of resilience focusing on various ecosystems. What interested me most is of course those of rangeland resilience. Apparently they all select the output capacity of the system as their objective and indicator of resilience, though the measures are different among models. I agree with this idea. However, most models only measure ecological variables such as water availability and nutrient flux. I believe that in the coming years we will see more attempts to incorporate socio-economic factors into the model. Mathematically this is not too difficult. The real labourous work is to identify these factors and evaluate them.
The modelling of Tibetan pastoralism resilience must have something different from that in other rangeland ecosystems. Perhaps I can expect more limiting factors, more sensitive system, and some factors imposed by the cultural, political and economic environment, which cannot simply appear in other places of the world.
I have encountered some excellent models of resilience focusing on various ecosystems. What interested me most is of course those of rangeland resilience. Apparently they all select the output capacity of the system as their objective and indicator of resilience, though the measures are different among models. I agree with this idea. However, most models only measure ecological variables such as water availability and nutrient flux. I believe that in the coming years we will see more attempts to incorporate socio-economic factors into the model. Mathematically this is not too difficult. The real labourous work is to identify these factors and evaluate them.
The modelling of Tibetan pastoralism resilience must have something different from that in other rangeland ecosystems. Perhaps I can expect more limiting factors, more sensitive system, and some factors imposed by the cultural, political and economic environment, which cannot simply appear in other places of the world.
2007年2月6日星期二
Shut up and code/read/whatever
重新拾起阅读的爱好，并且每天花两三个小时读书之余，我终于意识到我所接触的互联网还是个文化沙漠，尤其是中文互联网。
zh.Wikipedia 前一段时间短暂的解禁使它的条目突破了十万，但是上去用它的随机条目功能看看就会发现十次有九次遇到的都是些无聊的条目，比如台北市的某个公交车站，或者香港无线电视台的某个剧集。当然，Wikipedia 背后的基金会有的是钱，买得起硬盘和带宽，但这样的条目究竟有多少留存的价值，确实令人生疑。
豆瓣小组的讨论一半是灌水，一半是以 ad hoc 的方式解决问题，评论大多也是不知所云，但莫名地就上了首页的推荐。新功能九点已经算是很有创意的了，不过我不无遗憾地看到它并不能很好地预测我对 blog 的偏好，推荐给我的都是些玩弄文字却没有什么内容的名人博客，千篇一律地抓住近期热点做文章，或者像老罗和和菜头那样对骂。或许是我离开国内的文化圈子（如果它确实存在的话）的影响已经太久了，我确实看不出有什么必要关注这些 blog。
水木就不说什么了，近期最大的悲剧是 reader 版的沦落，标志就是连我也可以上去灌水了，虽然诡辩的能力不如某些 id，脸皮也不够厚，更没有可供在上面浪费的时间。
也许 Alan Kirby 关于 Web 2.0 的观察究竟是正确的。人人可编辑的互联网目前的趋势就是劣币驱逐良币（从注意力的角度来说）。至少从 Google 上发现一个有内容的结果实际上比十年前用 Yahoo! 搜索更困难了。事实上有意义的结果还是主要来自传统媒体和机构。从这个意义上说，人类，特别是非 geek 和 hacker 的那一部分，还没有学会使用互联网，我们只是用它重现了小时候在墙上涂抹“XXX是大坏蛋”之类字句的狂热。
反思一下我的 blog 对于促进人类文明的发展能有什么作用，结论并不乐观，它也许有助于一个还没出道的学术界从业人员记录自己的想法，或者在写作的过程中提炼尚未成型的思想，但作为一个放到互联网上的东西，它应该能够吸引到足够多的人就我写下的东西进行讨论和争辩，但是目前我能提供的内容，以及互联网的结构和人员组成似乎都不能满足我的这种要求。更重要的是，这种讨论和争辩要求一个人和他/她的 blog 长时间地停留在某个特定的话题上，而这对于还没有完全确定研究方向的我来说是无法满足的。
因此我也许需要对这个 blog 进行一些 hack，使读者能够订阅某个特定标签下的内容，而我也将尽力保证标签与分类的一致性。更重要的是，早日在地理／环境这个宽泛的话题内确定自己真正感兴趣的研究方向，并深入下去，这样才可能成为一个有用的内容提供者。在具体的写作方面，如本雅明提倡的，要越过对形式和内容的过分拘泥，探求其后的 truth。这并不容易做到，但可以通过自身的努力接近。
所以啥都不说了，多读好书，多思考，不把精力过多地投入到互联网的 socialisation 当中去。
zh.Wikipedia 前一段时间短暂的解禁使它的条目突破了十万，但是上去用它的随机条目功能看看就会发现十次有九次遇到的都是些无聊的条目，比如台北市的某个公交车站，或者香港无线电视台的某个剧集。当然，Wikipedia 背后的基金会有的是钱，买得起硬盘和带宽，但这样的条目究竟有多少留存的价值，确实令人生疑。
豆瓣小组的讨论一半是灌水，一半是以 ad hoc 的方式解决问题，评论大多也是不知所云，但莫名地就上了首页的推荐。新功能九点已经算是很有创意的了，不过我不无遗憾地看到它并不能很好地预测我对 blog 的偏好，推荐给我的都是些玩弄文字却没有什么内容的名人博客，千篇一律地抓住近期热点做文章，或者像老罗和和菜头那样对骂。或许是我离开国内的文化圈子（如果它确实存在的话）的影响已经太久了，我确实看不出有什么必要关注这些 blog。
水木就不说什么了，近期最大的悲剧是 reader 版的沦落，标志就是连我也可以上去灌水了，虽然诡辩的能力不如某些 id，脸皮也不够厚，更没有可供在上面浪费的时间。
也许 Alan Kirby 关于 Web 2.0 的观察究竟是正确的。人人可编辑的互联网目前的趋势就是劣币驱逐良币（从注意力的角度来说）。至少从 Google 上发现一个有内容的结果实际上比十年前用 Yahoo! 搜索更困难了。事实上有意义的结果还是主要来自传统媒体和机构。从这个意义上说，人类，特别是非 geek 和 hacker 的那一部分，还没有学会使用互联网，我们只是用它重现了小时候在墙上涂抹“XXX是大坏蛋”之类字句的狂热。
反思一下我的 blog 对于促进人类文明的发展能有什么作用，结论并不乐观，它也许有助于一个还没出道的学术界从业人员记录自己的想法，或者在写作的过程中提炼尚未成型的思想，但作为一个放到互联网上的东西，它应该能够吸引到足够多的人就我写下的东西进行讨论和争辩，但是目前我能提供的内容，以及互联网的结构和人员组成似乎都不能满足我的这种要求。更重要的是，这种讨论和争辩要求一个人和他/她的 blog 长时间地停留在某个特定的话题上，而这对于还没有完全确定研究方向的我来说是无法满足的。
因此我也许需要对这个 blog 进行一些 hack，使读者能够订阅某个特定标签下的内容，而我也将尽力保证标签与分类的一致性。更重要的是，早日在地理／环境这个宽泛的话题内确定自己真正感兴趣的研究方向，并深入下去，这样才可能成为一个有用的内容提供者。在具体的写作方面，如本雅明提倡的，要越过对形式和内容的过分拘泥，探求其后的 truth。这并不容易做到，但可以通过自身的努力接近。
所以啥都不说了，多读好书，多思考，不把精力过多地投入到互联网的 socialisation 当中去。
2007年2月3日星期六
Week 18: The plan becomes clear
It is the third week that I put most effort into grant application. It seems the application will well take my next week. But by preparing the application materials I have a better grasp of the whole project. I feel more clear about how the research will be carried out in the field.
I also begin to consider some more detailed issues about the study, such as its sensitivity and my workaround. I tried to write something about utilising remote sensing images in the study, though the sources are still limited. After the application is sent I think I will write it more systematically.
I also begin to consider some more detailed issues about the study, such as its sensitivity and my workaround. I tried to write something about utilising remote sensing images in the study, though the sources are still limited. After the application is sent I think I will write it more systematically.
Two articles on interviews using an interpreter
Kapborg and Bertero (2002), `Using an interpreter in qualitative interviews: does it threaten validity?', Nursing Inquiry 9(1), 52--56.
In qualitative research internal validity has high priority. Internal validity is achieved when the researcher demonstrate the reality of the participant through a consistent line and quatations from their interviews. This means that data are linked to their sources and illustrated by quotations, so the reader can establish that the conclusions and interpretations arise directly from them.
External validity is more difficult to achieve. External validity includes that the findings should be transferable to other, similar situations (how similar?).
Threats to validity: if the interpreter is not trained properly, does not have a full understanding of the particular research project, or has biased ideas, the quality of information may be distorted.
Farooq and Fear (2003), `Working through interpreters', Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 9, 104--109.
Some profound emotions and psychiatric processes may be underestimated in the process of translation.
The transformation by interpreter may include omission, addition, condensation, substitution, role exchange, altering closed/open question and normalisation.
It seems that I have to work with an interpreter anyway. The biggest worry is how the interpreter will influence the information given by the interviewees. The issues mentioned above should be made known to the interpreters before the interview.
In qualitative research internal validity has high priority. Internal validity is achieved when the researcher demonstrate the reality of the participant through a consistent line and quatations from their interviews. This means that data are linked to their sources and illustrated by quotations, so the reader can establish that the conclusions and interpretations arise directly from them.
External validity is more difficult to achieve. External validity includes that the findings should be transferable to other, similar situations (how similar?).
Threats to validity: if the interpreter is not trained properly, does not have a full understanding of the particular research project, or has biased ideas, the quality of information may be distorted.
Farooq and Fear (2003), `Working through interpreters', Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 9, 104--109.
Some profound emotions and psychiatric processes may be underestimated in the process of translation.
The transformation by interpreter may include omission, addition, condensation, substitution, role exchange, altering closed/open question and normalisation.
It seems that I have to work with an interpreter anyway. The biggest worry is how the interpreter will influence the information given by the interviewees. The issues mentioned above should be made known to the interpreters before the interview.
2007年2月2日星期五
呼唤欧洲动画的复归
电影院原本排片表上没有的 Arthur and the Invisibles 居然在诺丁汉与英国其他城市同步上映了，于是草草吃了晚饭就屁颠屁颠地跑去看。
虽然买票之后就开始告诫自己 "prepare to meet a lot of kids"，我在电影开场前15分钟走进放映厅时还是被吓了一跳。简单地说，我是里面年龄最大的未婚人士，也是年龄最小的成年人。嗯……下次看忍者神龟的时候想必还是这种阵势，我脸皮要再厚一点！
因为这是吕克贝松的第一部3D动画+真人影片，我首先注意到的，也是预告片首先吸引我的，是它的技术。3D 动画部分是一个叫 BUF 的工作室制作的，似乎以前没有听说过，不过从这部影片看来，技术力是很强的。人物建模非常值得称道，完全没有日式 CG 的塑料人效果，也不像美国电影那样夸张。人物虽然长着长耳朵，但看起来非常自然，特别是公主的雀斑脸造型非常可爱，特写的时候简直想用手去摸摸……（好吧，我知道我那么坐在电影院里已经很像个怪蜀黍了……）。
但是，再漂亮的演员如果不会演戏，也就不过是花瓶而已。前半段的 3D 动画部分，给人的感觉是比较凌乱，而真人扮演部分，每一个孩子都会喜欢，也就不说什么了。由于真人部分做了很多铺垫，所以似乎导演想让观众尽快和主人公进入到 Mininoids 的世界中去，但是作为一个成年人观众，我觉得 Arthur 对于人物的刻画不够。我们可以大概看出 Arthur 是个勇敢的小孩，公主很刁蛮，国王是很慈祥又很糊涂的那种类型，但是就这样，在10分钟的 Star Wars 式的战斗过后，Arthur 和公主以及王子殿下就结伴出发冒险了？CG 人物的性格还没有多少机会得到展示，特别是公主的戏又几乎让搞笑的王子殿下抢走了，于是我仍然觉得 Arthur 是和一个 CG 角色，而不是和一个神秘民族的公主结伴去冒险。
后半段里这种情况有所改善，但是剧情的推进仍然给人以突兀之感。不过不管怎么说，我作为观众的代入感总算也被调动起来了。结局部分是我看过的所有 PG 及以下级别电影里最好的之一，拍得很聪明。但总的来说，电影讲一个故事的努力是失败的。
我想，如果给吕克贝松多一个小时的时间，他可以把故事讲得更好。他的电影即使在最紧张的时刻，也需要给演员以空间，以进行对角色最精彩的刻画，比如尼基塔和杀手里昂，但是作为给孩子看的电影，两个半小时的长度将是不可想象的。也许以吕克贝松的风格，拍这样的一部电影只会得到大量的负面评价——他习惯于在电影里讲述太多的东西，根本不是这个市场定位的影片可以承载的。
另一方面，在影片当中可以看到很明显的好莱坞化或者麦当劳化的痕迹。我觉得这对于一向以文化气息和真正的幽默著称的法国电影来说简直是致命的。从前半段类似 Star Wars 却几乎什么也看不清的空战，到后来 Hip-hop 式的打斗，都可以看出吕克贝松试图融入一些流行的，“酷”的元素，但却无法很好地把它们融进自己的影片当中，无论节奏还是画面都显得格格不入，而这一点，至少前几年的美国动画都做得成功得多。那些美国式的笑料就像在咯吱观众，我只有报以礼貌的格格笑，真正让我大笑的，倒是那些零星出现的欧洲式的小聪明。
也正是这些小聪明，让我相信吕克贝松大叔还是有想象力的。BUF 则证明了欧洲的技术实力。像 Elephants Dream 这样的电影都能被业余人士拍出来，欧洲似乎没有什么理由不能拍出有自己特色，甚至与美国片分庭抗礼的动画电影。在被 Pixar 千篇一律的笑料搞得审美疲劳之后，我更加希望看到欧洲充满想象力的动画电影。Arthur and the Invisibles 不算成功，但如果今后的欧洲动画电影不是迎和美国的口味，而是走出自己的一条新路的话，它将是一个好的开始。
虽然买票之后就开始告诫自己 "prepare to meet a lot of kids"，我在电影开场前15分钟走进放映厅时还是被吓了一跳。简单地说，我是里面年龄最大的未婚人士，也是年龄最小的成年人。嗯……下次看忍者神龟的时候想必还是这种阵势，我脸皮要再厚一点！
因为这是吕克贝松的第一部3D动画+真人影片，我首先注意到的，也是预告片首先吸引我的，是它的技术。3D 动画部分是一个叫 BUF 的工作室制作的，似乎以前没有听说过，不过从这部影片看来，技术力是很强的。人物建模非常值得称道，完全没有日式 CG 的塑料人效果，也不像美国电影那样夸张。人物虽然长着长耳朵，但看起来非常自然，特别是公主的雀斑脸造型非常可爱，特写的时候简直想用手去摸摸……（好吧，我知道我那么坐在电影院里已经很像个怪蜀黍了……）。
但是，再漂亮的演员如果不会演戏，也就不过是花瓶而已。前半段的 3D 动画部分，给人的感觉是比较凌乱，而真人扮演部分，每一个孩子都会喜欢，也就不说什么了。由于真人部分做了很多铺垫，所以似乎导演想让观众尽快和主人公进入到 Mininoids 的世界中去，但是作为一个成年人观众，我觉得 Arthur 对于人物的刻画不够。我们可以大概看出 Arthur 是个勇敢的小孩，公主很刁蛮，国王是很慈祥又很糊涂的那种类型，但是就这样，在10分钟的 Star Wars 式的战斗过后，Arthur 和公主以及王子殿下就结伴出发冒险了？CG 人物的性格还没有多少机会得到展示，特别是公主的戏又几乎让搞笑的王子殿下抢走了，于是我仍然觉得 Arthur 是和一个 CG 角色，而不是和一个神秘民族的公主结伴去冒险。
后半段里这种情况有所改善，但是剧情的推进仍然给人以突兀之感。不过不管怎么说，我作为观众的代入感总算也被调动起来了。结局部分是我看过的所有 PG 及以下级别电影里最好的之一，拍得很聪明。但总的来说，电影讲一个故事的努力是失败的。
我想，如果给吕克贝松多一个小时的时间，他可以把故事讲得更好。他的电影即使在最紧张的时刻，也需要给演员以空间，以进行对角色最精彩的刻画，比如尼基塔和杀手里昂，但是作为给孩子看的电影，两个半小时的长度将是不可想象的。也许以吕克贝松的风格，拍这样的一部电影只会得到大量的负面评价——他习惯于在电影里讲述太多的东西，根本不是这个市场定位的影片可以承载的。
另一方面，在影片当中可以看到很明显的好莱坞化或者麦当劳化的痕迹。我觉得这对于一向以文化气息和真正的幽默著称的法国电影来说简直是致命的。从前半段类似 Star Wars 却几乎什么也看不清的空战，到后来 Hip-hop 式的打斗，都可以看出吕克贝松试图融入一些流行的，“酷”的元素，但却无法很好地把它们融进自己的影片当中，无论节奏还是画面都显得格格不入，而这一点，至少前几年的美国动画都做得成功得多。那些美国式的笑料就像在咯吱观众，我只有报以礼貌的格格笑，真正让我大笑的，倒是那些零星出现的欧洲式的小聪明。
也正是这些小聪明，让我相信吕克贝松大叔还是有想象力的。BUF 则证明了欧洲的技术实力。像 Elephants Dream 这样的电影都能被业余人士拍出来，欧洲似乎没有什么理由不能拍出有自己特色，甚至与美国片分庭抗礼的动画电影。在被 Pixar 千篇一律的笑料搞得审美疲劳之后，我更加希望看到欧洲充满想象力的动画电影。Arthur and the Invisibles 不算成功，但如果今后的欧洲动画电影不是迎和美国的口味，而是走出自己的一条新路的话，它将是一个好的开始。
订阅：
评论 (Atom)