Academia BASE . . .

[NickDG 23]

Google has a beta search called Google/Scholar. This search excludes commercial web sites in favor of educational or .edu ones. Most returns are abstracts of the original scholarly works.

http://scholar.google.com/

I searched for "BASE Jumping" and found a few interesting things including the following.

>>Theoretical Ethnography of the Bridge Day Event.

Jeff Ferrell
Northern Arizona University, USA

Dragan Milovanovic
Northeastern Illinois University, USA

Stephen G Lyng
Virginia Commonwealth University, USA

Edgework experiences have been subject to some discussion in recent literature. A form that finds a nexus between licit and illicit activities–BASE jumping–provides a fertile field for ethnographic and theoretical research. In criminology it provides insights into the sensual motivations and experiential frameworks for illicit social action in conjunction with moments of marginality and resistance. BASE jumping–the activity of illegally parachuting from bridges, buildings, antennas, and cliffs–increasingly incorporates a host of mediated practices. Our ethnographic research with the BASE-jumping subculture reveals that BASE jumpers regularly document their jumps through the use of helmet-mounted and body-mounted video cameras, or otherwise videotape one another in the act of jumping. These video documents in turn become a form of subculturally situated media as BASE jumpers utilize them to negotiate individual and collective status, to earn money and exposure, and to legitimate the subculture as sport. Moreover, mass media producers regularly create and disseminate their own images of BASE-jumping activities, and re-present subculturally generated images within television programs and films. The media saturation of BASE jumping thus serves to elongate and expand the meaning of an ephemeral event; to construct a multi-faceted audience for a seemingly secretive endeavor; and, ultimately, to render BASE jumping indistinguishable from the mediated representation of it.<<

And, I always thought we videoed ourselves because we are big freaking hams. BTW, I didn't know what ethnography is either, so I looked it up:

eth•nog•ra•phy n. The branch of anthropology that deals with the scientific description of specific human cultures.

NickD BASE 194

[TVPB 0]

I alway thought that all along. Finally someone agrees with me!!

Nick - you have too much spare time. Luv your work.

Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck

The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide.

[rendezvous 0]

... and I thought BASE stood for Building Antennae Span and Earth !

[vandev 0]

How you find this stuff Nick ...I'l never no....

very entertaining with my morning coffee...

I would say also written by people who dont base jump...

keep it comming....

In the end...the universe has a way of working itself out.... "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle"

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

...ultimately, to render BASE jumping indistinguishable from the mediated representation of it.

I'm tempted to spend the 10 bucks and see what else they have to say in the full article.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[460 0]

well duhhhh!!!!!

someone should teach these boys to write.

Looks like a death sandwich without the bread - Steve Deadman Morrell, BASE 174

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Quote

...ultimately, to render BASE jumping indistinguishable from the mediated representation of it.

I'm tempted to spend the 10 bucks and see what else they have to say in the full article.

Don't bother. I'm going to get it. You can look at mine.

Edited to add: Copyright violation complete. It's on its way, Tom.

Has anyone yet focused on the fact that the journal in which this was originally printed is targeted to criminologists? You guys are apparently a model for something, but without the full text, I'm not quite sure what it is.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[klapaucius 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...ultimately, to render BASE jumping indistinguishable from the mediated representation of it.

Does it mean that ultimately the media will portray the real thing, not it's (media's) idea what BASE might be? In a sense a good thing, showing the sport not as a "secretive endeavour".

Quote

I'm tempted to spend the 10 bucks and see what else they have to say in the full article.

Quote

Don't bother. I'm going to get it. You can look at mine.

Edited to add: Copyright violation complete. It's on its way, Tom.

If this is a secretive illicit fraternity, copyright should not be an issue. May I get a copy, too, please? (my University card expired a while ago...)

Quote

Has anyone yet focused on the fact that the journal in which this was originally printed is targeted to criminologists? You guys are apparently a model for something, but without the full text, I'm not quite sure what it is.

The authors seem to be established researchers, authors of books etc, not just students looking for a research subject, so let's take them seriously. They may want to see how BASE fits with other extreme and semi-illicit behaviours. I do not think BASE fraternity is a model, it's rather an application/exemplification of the model.


Now a translation from scientific vocabulary to plain English.

"BASE jumpers thrive on sneaking onto an antenna at night with best buddies, get the satisfaction and thrill of not getting caught, get a thrill from the jump, and film their activities. Later they talk with friends about the jumps, establish status hierarchies, post movies on the net. Media report with it's own bias, but the increase in the coverage and commercialization of jumper activities may lead to accurate portrayal of the sport in the long run."

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

If this is a secretive illicit fraternity, copyright should not be an issue. May I get a copy, too, please? (my University card expired a while ago...)

I am not a member, but merely a fond observer.

That being said, anyone who wants to lure me into criminal behavior is at least obliged to provide me with the required materials for the task--in this case, I need your email address, because I'm pretty sure I can't PM you a PDF file (287KB). You may either PM it to me or send me an email.

rl

[email protected]

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[base736 0]

Awesome article. If you can make it past the first part of the introduction (which read, to me, like a contest to see who can use ordinary words in as obtuse a way as possible), the remainder is, I think, a valuable perspective on the relationship between BASE and the media, written in the context of observations made at Bridge Day '98 and '99. Both fair and illuminating, in my opinion.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Awesome article. If you can make it past the first part of the introduction (which read, to me, like a contest to see who can use ordinary words in as obtuse a way as possible), the remainder is, I think, a valuable perspective on the relationship between BASE and the media, written in the context of observations made at Bridge Day '98 and '99. Both fair and illuminating, in my opinion.

Actually, it was BD '97 and '98, and the part of the article that I (being in the line of work I'm in) think of as the "statement of facts" brought back a lot of memories, all of them wonderful.

If these were the guys who were following Marta around in '97, I remember them. At the time, someone (Who? Who? Who? Damn, I'm getting old, because I can't recall...) told me they were doing a documentary about the Sorcerer.

As 736 mentioned, all the jargon is not pleasing (a true bastardization of the English language, if ever there was one, and I thought lawyers were annoying with their "terms of art"). After slogging through that morass, the end felt like a puff of stale air--it seemed like an awful lot of work to reach what I believe to be a somewhat skewed conclusion.

Edited to add: The flaw at the core of the study is they failed to take into account that many of the jumpers at Bridge Day are 1) first-timers, 2) one-timers and/or 3) Bridge-Day-only jumpers.

But the flood of recollection in between made it a worthwhile read.

rl

P.S. If any of you haven't read it and still want a copy, let me know.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Treejumps 0]

I did my best to read this thing. What a load. I guess these Phd's have to blather on about something to justify their existence at a university. If not for a university teaching job guys like this would have to actually do work; like flipping burgers. Its amazing they spent so much time and energy on BD, as if its the Mecca that all base jumpers MUST come to ever year.

I guess if you have enough time you can make anything seem like something. Can you just imagine a dozen of these guys (the writers) standing around discussing their work? Uggggh.

[base736 0]

Quote

[...] it seemed like an awful lot of work to reach what I believe to be a somewhat skewed conclusion.

Care to elaborate on the sense in which you felt their conclusion was skewed? And what you felt the conclusion was, exactly?

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Care to elaborate on the sense in which you felt their conclusion was skewed? And what you felt the conclusion was, exactly?

I will be glad to elaborate...later. One of the problems I have right now is I'm posting between files, as well as posting in my sleep. You're asking me a question that requires logical thought, and that means I have to take the time to do more than post my gut reaction.

So either tonight or tomorrow night (I'm tired), I will do this.

In the meantime, I did mention what I thought was the major flaw when I edited my post: their sample included a lot of skydivers, not a lot of real base jumpers. (And part of this may be my own prejudice about what a real base jumper is.)

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[base736 0]

Quote

In the meantime, I did mention what I thought was the major flaw when I edited my post: their sample included a lot of skydivers, not a lot of real base jumpers.

It's certainly true that, in many ways, Bridge Day is not representative of BASE jumping as a whole. What struck me was that, in my opinion anyway, the differences were almost entirely irrelevant to the study, so that they ultimately came to reasonable conclusions despite that. In that respect, it really wasn't a flaw at all, though my prejudice against BD made me skeptical from the beginning...

I look forward to reading your elaboration...

[JaapSuter 0]

Holy crap Tree, I'm totally with you one this one. I intend on reading the entire article when I have some more time, but judging by the abstract I am not hopeful.

Allow me to reprint it. Paragraphs were added by me to make it slightly more readable.

Quote

Edgework experiences have been subject to some discussion in recent literature. A form that finds a nexus between licit and illicit activities—BASE jumping—provides a fertile field for ethnographic and theoretical research. In criminology it provides insights into the sensual motivations and experiential frameworks for illicit social action in conjunction with moments of marginality and resistance.

BASE jumping—the activity of illegally parachuting from bridges, buildings, antennas, and cliffs—increasingly incorporates a host of mediated practices. Our ethnographic research with the BASE-jumping subculture reveals that BASE jumpers regularly document their jumps through the use of helmet-mounted and bodymounted video cameras, or otherwise videotape one another in the act of jumping. These video documents in turn become a form of subculturally situated media as BASE jumpers utilize them to negotiate individual and collective status, to earn money and exposure, and to legitimate the subculture as sport.

Moreover, mass media producers regularly create and disseminate their own images of BASE-jumping activities, and re-present subculturally generated images within television programs and films. The media saturation of BASE jumping thus serves to elongate and expand the meaning of an ephemeral event; to construct a multi-faceted audience for a seemingly secretive endeavor; and, ultimately, to render BASE jumping indistinguishable from the mediated representation of it.

This piece of writing is a disgrace for the entire scientific community.

I understand that most sciences have occasional needs for a specific vocabulary that only respective experts understand. This makes communication within that community more effective, and it is assumed that those with an interest will take the effort to learn the vocabulary.

Even then, most authors aim for readability. The piece above however breaks every rule on effective communication. Even as a non-expert in this field, I am fairly sure the above abstract is just a tangled mess of overcomplicated sentences in order to find some far-fetched justification for spending my tax-money on their PHD programs.

It makes me want to throw up.

[klapaucius 0]

Quote

This piece of writing is a disgrace for the entire scientific community.

I understand that most sciences have occasional needs for a specific vocabulary that only respective experts understand. This makes communication within that community more effect, and it is assumed that those with an interest will take the effort to learn the vocabulary.

Even then, most authors aim for readability. The piece above however breaks every rule on effective communication. Even as a non-expert in this field, I am fairly sure the above abstract is just a tangled mess of overcomplicated sentences in order to find some far-fetched justification for spending my tax-money on their PHD programs.

It makes me want to throw up.

As a former scientist I have to defend this fraction of humankind...

Argument about tax dollars is below the belt, one may point to waste of tax dollars to teach people how to use math to sell video games of doubtful societal usefulness . My former field was even more difficult to defend...

Well, etnography is quite more descriptive than geometric algebra and research is much more about discussion of ideas rather than pushing the frontier of proveable knowledge.

I agree with you on readability; Still, use of terminology helps as in every science (e.g "unitary transormation" in Jaap's world), to tighten the definition and save bandwidth.

The gist of the essay, as I get it, is that the BD is a "happening", similar in some aspects to busker festivals, in some aspects to graffitti painting.
("nexus between licit and illicit activities") Both activities exist in the context of the observation (mediation) and the performance blends with observation. The segment about jumpers asked to smile to the camera to the left is an example. The cameramen affect the jump and the public viewing of the event affects it too.

The event is then different than jumping alone at night, where there less effort to ttempt to "elongate and expand the meaning of an ephemeral event". Heck, even if the video is widely seen and succesfully distributed, it will portray BASE as "a form that finds a nexus between licit and illicit activities". BD media coverage shows (at least according to the authors) the event as the real deal - the event beeing the whole thing, not just jump.

It's like in golf. Raised hands or wave to the crowd, shown on TV are parts of the game. Game is not only hitting the ball and talking about it in the club (that;s like jumping and talking afterwards) but also giving interviews and signing endorsement contracts. By "constructing a multi-faceted audience for a seemingly secretive endeavor", BD changes the former into the latter. And the latter, now the whole deal, will "ultimately, render BASE jumping indistinguishable from the mediated representation of it".

Jumping "indistinguishable from the mediated representation" also implies more legitimacy to the sport. This leads straight into the legal/illegal discussions, though.

Although it might be a difficult and sometimes exasperating read, it is an interesting viewpoint, IMHO, on the BD event.

Will you see the dynamics of the event differently after reading the paper?. Will your jump be different?
Even asking those questions makes one look at the event differently. I'll look at it differently, when I am standing at the railing in two months and look at you guys doing all your stuff. Reading it was quite educational.

[JaapSuter 0]

Quote

Argument about tax dollars is below the belt, one may point to waste of tax dollars to teach people how to use math to sell video games of doubtful societal usefulness . My former field was even more difficult to defend...

I'm not saying that there isn't a legitimate justification for the existence of their program. There are plenty of niche sciences that I have no interest in, but I'll defend their existence regardless. However, such sciences should realize that because they are vulnerable they need to pay more attention to the quality of their publications.

I have not given the paper enough time to comment on their observations and conclusions. My attack is solely on their writing.

A great writer aims to make life easy for the reader. For every writing there are many readers, so it is best if the writer bears the burden of getting a message across.

A poor writer doesn't realize this and writes what he thinks is best, without putting himself in the position of the reader. Few get lucky and write reader-friendly material by default.

A sinful writer throws this principle out the window entirely and tries to use meaningless words to strengthen his perceived intelligence. Through this, he is insulting the reader's intelligence and turning away a large audience.

Quote

Although it might be a difficult and sometimes exasperating read, it is an interesting viewpoint, IMHO, on the BD event.

Thanks for this. I will give the paper more attention now than I otherwise would have. I appreciate it.

[klapaucius 0]

Quote

I have not given the paper enough time to comment on their observations and conclusions. My attack is solely on their writing.

yes, we have seen better written papers..

[base736 0]

Quote

This piece of writing is a disgrace for the entire scientific community.

As a member of said community, let me assure you that this is not the case.

Quote

A great writer aims to make life easy for the reader.

Not strictly true of technical publications, where the primary goal may be to say precisely what one intends -- no more, and no less. Though I find it obtuse, and therefore difficult to read in places, the words used in the paper were probably chosen carefully to make very specific statements.

Regarding those statements...

Quote

The event is then different than jumping alone at night, where there less effort to attempt to "elongate and expand the meaning of an ephemeral event".

I found two things particularly interesting about the paper. The first was that, even jumping alone at night, many (most?) jumpers carry camera these days. Video has become an important part of the BS'ing that follows most jumps. Because of that, commercial media are not the only ones turning BASE into more than just the jump -- there's a bigger picture (so to speak) there. That contrasts with, for instance, amateur soccer, where nobody wears body-mounted video and commercial media are only very rarely interested.

The second was their take on the relationship between BASE jumpers and the media, in that they note that BASE jumpers manipulate the media toward their own ends as much as the media manipulates BASE jumpers. I find the idea that the media is not leading a one-way attack on BASE and everything it stands for refreshing.

Both of these observations have a much broader significance than just Bridge Day itself.

[klapaucius 0]

The authors seem to be on your side:

Jeff Ferrell:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312233353/qid=1123703546/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7271703-5286417?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Dragan Milanovic - cover is a MUST see:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1881798488/qid=1123703806/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7271703-5286417?v=glance&s=books

[JaapSuter 0]

Quote

"...disgrace for the scientific community."

As a member of said community, let me assure you that this is not the case.

I am a member of said community too. I have no PHD, but I hold a M.Sc. degree and I still enjoy a great deal of research in my professional life as well as from my armchair.

I belief this abstract is a example of what is harming science. If we don't communicate clearly we allow people to trust irrational explanations for phenomenons they don't understand. We would all still be creationists if Darwin hadn't been a great author.

Let me stress again that I strongly belief in vocabularies to make communication more effective. I don't see a problem with entry level barriers for those trying to get into a science. Not all papers have to be accessible to laymen.

Quote

"A great writer aims to make life easy for the reader."

Not strictly true of technical publications, where the primary goal may be to say precisely what one intends -- no more, and no less.

That is always the most important goal, even for non-technical publications. If an author says more or less than what he intended he failed to communicate his message. Making life easy for the reader is a secondary goal. Nonetheless it is one that we should not forget.

Quote

Though I find it obtuse, and therefore difficult to read in places, the words used in the paper were probably chosen carefully to make very specific statements.

I have not yet read the entire paper and I am therefore basing my opinion on just the abstract. Forgive me for saying this but unless your vocabulary comfort zone is at a drastically different level than mine, I find it naieve of you to think that the authors chose their wording with the intent of making specific statements. I agree that they chose carefully, but only to further obfuscate their message.

Let's have a look...

Quote

Edgework experiences have been subject to some discussion in recent literature.

What is useful about this sentence? It doesn't contribute anything to the abstract. But let's assume for a minute that it has purpose, then the use of "been subject to" is still a capital sin. This sentence is more clear when rewritten as: "Edgework experiences are discussed in recent literature."

Quote

A form [BASE jumping] that finds a nexus between licit and illicit activities

A form?

I wrote an email to my mother the other day. It read like this; "A form that offers great pleasure, drinking coffee is an every-day activity." I intended to write: "I like coffee and drink it every day.", but I was worried my mother might think I'm dumb.

Sure, an email to my mother is not the same as a scientific paper, but come on....

Furthermore, BASE jumping doesn't find things. Jumpers do. Perhaps BASE jumping establishes a nexus, but it certainly doesn't find it. And what's with licit and illicit activities? You mean that some of things we do are illegal?

Quote

BASE jumping—provides a fertile field for ethnographic and theoretical research.

I can appreciate the fertile field analogy. The inclusion of theoretical research is offensive though. I doubt that the authors meant the meta-science that researches theories. They're just talking about research that is not carried out in the field. Which, in this context, is the same as not saying anything at all.

Quote

In criminology it provides insights into the sensual motivations and experiential frameworks for illicit social action in conjunction with moments of marginality and resistance.

Sensual is a poor choice of words here. They might mean "sensory", they might mean "of physical nature", but I doubt they mean the most common explanation of this word which says that we all get boners from BASE jumping.

And why is the framework it provides experiential? Is it because BASE is a real life experience, instead of a made-up scenario? Well, duh.

Besides, this sentence is wrong on another level too. I think they are trying to say that within criminology BASE provides insights in sensual motivations, as well as experiential frameworks for blah blah. Now they are saying that BASE provides insides into the frameworks. I doubt this is the kind of insight they are looking for.

Quote

BASE jumping—the activity of illegally parachuting from bridges, buildings, antennas, and cliffs—...

A flawed definition. Need I continue?

This abstract is the kind of text that turns a disinterested society into an uninterested society. Poor communication gives opponents the ammunition to attack our observations and conclusions with flawed logic.

I wonder if the authors are conducting a study on how marginalized adrenalin seekers use the form of digital debating over literal frameworks to create a nexus between sensual behaviour and thereotical research.

I mean that the authors of that paper are probably lurking around in these forums to find a bunch of bored BASE jumpers flaming each other over a piece of text none of them wrote.

[base736 0]

Quote

This abstract is the kind of text that turns a disinterested society into an uninterested society.

It might surprise you to learn that the journal "Theoretical Criminology" is targeted at researchers in the field of theoretical criminology. This abstract is the kind of text that is generally not read by the disinterested society of which you speak.

The academic world has, unquestionably, established particular styles in which articles are -- and are not -- written. To seriously criticize a work on the style in which it was written, however, and not on its content, is (in my opinion) among the lowest forms of attack. Frankly, I'm surprised to see that sort of attack coming from your direction.

Edit: Typo

[JaapSuter 0]

Quote

It might surprise you to learn that the journal "Theoretical Criminology" is targeted at researchers in the field of theoretical criminology.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Even if this was written better, the contents alone suggests there is a very niche target audience.

Quote

This abstract is the kind of text that is generally not read by the disinterested society of which you speak.

Agreed. I'll retract my statement that this abstract specifically is one that hurts science. However, I still belief that science has a duty to communicate clearly, and in my opinion this piece does not.

Do you think it is impossible to rewrite the abstract to read much easier without harming the message? If I had more time I would give it a try myself. I know nothing of this field, but I am fairly sure I could significantly improve the readability of the abstract without changing the meaning.

Quote

The academic world has, unquestionably, established particular styles in which articles are -- and are not -- written. To seriously criticize a work on the style in which it was written, however, and not on its content, is (in my opinion) among the lowest forms of attack.

I'm not critizing the work. For all I know, its conclusions could be of great value and truly revolutionary. I fully intend to give the paper its due effort tonight.

I am critizing the writing style of the abstract. I not only hold the opinion that the authors have neglected to communicate clearly, I also accuse them of taking extra effort to make the message more obtuse.

This is not an attack on the contents of the publication or the work itself. It's an attack on the writing style of the abstract and the authors behind it.

Unless somebody can convince me this abstract could not have been written better, I stand by this opinion. I also still think that because of this writing style, they are harming the scientific community by limiting the amount of people that could get value out of this paper.

And again, I'm not saying their target should be the disinterested public, but certainly it could be bigger than it is now.

Theoretical criminology is partially responsible for making descisions whether dangerous people can be let back into society again or not. Holland recently had a few cases where people were deemed fit for reintegration and they ended up murdering and raping several innocent people.

Now all of a sudden the disinterested public is not so uninterested anymore. At that point, we need to have a clear, understandable and solid foundation to explain the justification of our decisions. That doesn't mean oversimplified communication, but it demands clarity for sure.

Quote

Frankly, I'm surprised to see that sort of attack coming from your direction.

I'm sorry to hear that. I think we share many opinions on what science means. I am just very uptight about communication because science is blamed for matters that are only caused by poor communication and not due to actual scientific results.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Quote

[...] it seemed like an awful lot of work to reach what I believe to be a somewhat skewed conclusion.

Care to elaborate on the sense in which you felt their conclusion was skewed? And what you felt the conclusion was, exactly?

Well, here we are, two days later. I always work better with a deadline, even if it's self-imposed.

I take back what I said. These guys never reached a conclusion. They blathered. (Definition of "blather" as used here: argument by repetition, unsupported claim, context-dropping and spin-doctoring.)

In all seriousness, I've read the abstract and the "conclusions and reflections" (plenty reflective, but not at all conclusive) about twenty times each. The individual sentences can be deciphered, but as a whole, they do not come together to form a cohesive and coherent thought.

Unfortunately for these researchers, they failed to take into account that the mother of BASE is skydiving, and it is from those roots that video-making, video-sharing, and video-selling arise. Too, skydiving has plenty of media saturation.

So what I would ask these fellows is this: if I substituted a skydiving event for a base event, what difference would it make to your paper and your research?

And the answer to that is: none. Except that they wouldn't be able to make the link between skydiving and quasi-illegal activity, and publication in a criminology journal wouldn't be open to them.

You can't tie the non-base jumping picture-takers, video-makers to base. They're just there to get a story, make a buck, and they will be at the next story-making, buck-making event, whatever that event happens to be.

So what about the base jumpers themselves? Well, Will Forshay was just making a living. He was a professional skydiving videographer (and a ham--as Nick mentioned above--and a very funny, wonderful guy, which has nothing to do with this, but I miss him, so I'm throwing it in here anyway) who also happened to base jump. An opportunity presented itself, and Lemmings was born. Most of the folks I know who sell video, be it to the media or to their friends, are just people who have found a way to supplement their income. How is that different from anyone who makes a movie? Sells a picture? Does anything, really, to make a living or make a few extra bucks? It's only different in this paper, because these "researchers" say it is.

Ask yourself this: if there were no media at Bridge Day, would the jumpers still come? If there were no way to make base videos, would you still jump?

Okay, that's part one. I've got more, but after a day's worth of thinking and typing (all for you Abbie--I'm getting there), this is too much. So argue this, and eventually, I'll figure out how to get put the rest of the electrons in coherent form.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb