Tag Archives: Society for Linguistic Anthropology

Academics and Their Publics

Misunderstood by Raffi Asdourian
Misunderstood by Raffi Asdourian

Academics are misunderstood.

Almost by definition.

Pretty much any academic eventually feels that s/he is misunderstood. Misunderstandings about some core notions in about any academic field are involved in some of the most common pet peeves among academics.

In other words, there’s nothing as transdisciplinary as misunderstanding.

It can happen in the close proximity of a given department (“colleagues in my department misunderstand my work”). It can happen through disciplinary boundaries (“people in that field have always misunderstood our field”). And, it can happen generally: “Nobody gets us.”

It’s not paranoia and it’s probably not self-victimization. But there almost seems to be a form of “onedownmanship” at stake with academics from different disciplines claiming that they’re more misunderstood than others. In fact, I personally get the feeling that ethnographers are more among the most misunderstood people around, but even short discussions with friends in other fields (including mathematics) have helped me get the idea that, basically, we’re all misunderstood at the same “level” but there are variations in the ways we’re misunderstood. For instance, anthropologists in general are mistaken for what they aren’t based on partial understanding by the general population.

An example from my own experience, related to my decision to call myself an “informal ethnographer.” When you tell people you’re an anthropologist, they form an image in their minds which is very likely to be inaccurate. But they do typically have an image in their minds. On the other hand, very few people have any idea about what “ethnography” means, so they’re less likely to form an opinion of what you do from prior knowledge. They may puzzle over the term and try to take a guess as to what “ethnographer” might mean but, in my experience, calling myself an “ethnographer” has been a more efficient way to be understood than calling myself an “anthropologist.”

This may all sound like nitpicking but, from the inside, it’s quite impactful. Linguists are frequently asked about the number of languages they speak. Mathematicians are taken to be number freaks. Psychologists are perceived through the filters of “pop psych.” There are many stereotypes associated with engineers. Etc.

These misunderstandings have an impact on anyone’s work. Not only can it be demoralizing and can it impact one’s sense of self-worth, but it can influence funding decisions as well as the use of research results. These misunderstandings can underminine learning across disciplines. In survey courses, basic misunderstandings can make things very difficult for everyone. At a rather basic level, academics fight misunderstandings more than they fight ignorance.

The  main reason I’m discussing this is that I’ve been given several occasions to think about the interface between the Ivory Tower and the rest of the world. It’s been a major theme in my blogposts about intellectuals, especially the ones in French. Two years ago, for instance, I wrote a post in French about popularizers. A bit more recently, I’ve been blogging about specific instances of misunderstandings associated with popularizers, including Malcolm Gladwell’s approach to expertise. Last year, I did a podcast episode about ethnography and the Ivory Tower. And, just within the past few weeks, I’ve been reading a few things which all seem to me to connect with this same issue: common misunderstandings about academic work. The connections are my own, and may not be so obvious to anyone else. But they’re part of my motivations to blog about this important issue.

In no particular order:

But, of course, I think about many other things. Including (again, in no particular order):

One discussion I remember, which seems to fit, included comments about Germaine Dieterlen by a friend who also did research in West Africa. Can’t remember the specifics but the gist of my friend’s comment was that “you get to respect work by the likes of Germaine Dieterlen once you start doing field research in the region.” In my academic background, appreciation of Germaine Dieterlen’s may not be unconditional, but it doesn’t necessarily rely on extensive work in the field. In other words, while some parts of Dieterlen’s work may be controversial and it’s extremely likely that she “got a lot of things wrong,” her work seems to be taken seriously by several French-speaking africanists I’ve met. And not only do I respect everyone but I would likely praise someone who was able to work in the field for so long. She’s not my heroine (I don’t really have heroes) or my role-model, but it wouldn’t have occurred to me that respect for her wasn’t widespread. If it had seemed that Dieterlen’s work had been misunderstood, my reflex would possibly have been to rehabilitate her.

In fact, there’s  a strong academic tradition of rehabilitating deceased scholars. The first example which comes to mind is a series of articles (PDF, in French) and book chapters by UWO linguistic anthropologist Regna Darnell.about “Benjamin Lee Whorf as a key figure in linguistic anthropology.” Of course, saying that these texts by Darnell constitute a rehabilitation of Whorf reveals a type of evaluation of her work. But that evaluation comes from a third person, not from me. The likely reason for this case coming up to my mind is that the so-called “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis” is among the most misunderstood notions from linguistic anthropology. Moreover, both Whorf and Sapir are frequently misunderstood, which can make matters difficulty for many linguistic anthropologists talking with people outside the discipline.

The opposite process is also common: the “slaughtering” of “sacred cows.” (First heard about sacred cows through an article by ethnomusicologist Marcia Herndon.) In some significant ways, any scholar (alive or not) can be the object of not only critiques and criticisms but a kind of off-handed dismissal. Though this often happens within an academic context, the effects are especially lasting outside of academia. In other words, any scholar’s name is likely to be “sullied,” at one point or another. Typically, there seems to be a correlation between the popularity of a scholar and the likelihood of her/his reputation being significantly tarnished at some point in time. While there may still be people who treat Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche, Socrates, Einstein, or Rousseau as near divinities, there are people who will avoid any discussion about anything they’ve done or said. One way to put it is that they’re all misunderstood. Another way to put it is that their main insights have seeped through “common knowledge” but that their individual reputations have decreased.

Perhaps the most difficult case to discuss is that of Marx (Karl, not Harpo). Textbooks in introductory sociology typically have him as a key figure in the discipline and it seems clear that his insight on social issues was fundamental in social sciences. But, outside of some key academic contexts, his name is associated with a large series of social events about which people tend to have rather negative reactions. Even more so than for Paul de Man or  Martin Heidegger, Marx’s work is entangled in public opinion about his ideas. Haven’t checked for examples but I’m quite sure that Marx’s work is banned in a number of academic contexts. However, even some of Marx’s most ardent opponents are likely to agree with several aspects of Marx’s work and it’s sometimes funny how Marxian some anti-Marxists may be.

But I digress…

Typically, the “slaughtering of sacred cows” relates to disciplinary boundaries instead of social ones. At least, there’s a significant difference between your discipline’s own “sacred cows” and what you perceive another discipline’s “sacred cows” to be. Within a discipline, the process of dismissing a prior scholar’s work is almost œdipean (speaking of Freud). But dismissal of another discipline’s key figures is tantamount to a rejection of that other discipline. It’s one thing for a physicist to show that Newton was an alchemist. It’d be another thing entirely for a social scientist to deconstruct James Watson’s comments about race or for a theologian to argue with Darwin. Though discussions may have to do with individuals, the effects of the latter can widen gaps between scholarly disciplines.

And speaking of disciplinarity, there’s a whole set of issues having to do with discussions “outside of someone’s area of expertise.” On one side, comments made by academics about issues outside of their individual areas of expertise can be very tricky and can occasionally contribute to core misunderstandings. The fear of “talking through one’s hat” is quite significant, in no small part because a scholar’s prestige and esteem may greatly decrease as a result of some blatantly inaccurate statements (although some award-winning scholars seem not to be overly impacted by such issues).

On the other side, scholars who have to impart expert knowledge to people outside of their discipline  often have to “water down” or “boil down” their ideas and, in effect, oversimplifying these issues and concepts. Partly because of status (prestige and esteem), lowering standards is also very tricky. In some ways, this second situation may be more interesting. And it seems unavoidable.

How can you prevent misunderstandings when people may not have the necessary background to understand what you’re saying?

This question may reveal a rather specific attitude: “it’s their fault if they don’t understand.” Such an attitude may even be widespread. Seems to me, it’s not rare to hear someone gloating about other people “getting it wrong,” with the suggestion that “we got it right.”  As part of negotiations surrounding expert status, such an attitude could even be a pretty rational approach. If you’re trying to position yourself as an expert and don’t suffer from an “impostor syndrome,” you can easily get the impression that non-specialists have it all wrong and that only experts like you can get to the truth. Yes, I’m being somewhat sarcastic and caricatural, here. Academics aren’t frequently that dismissive of other people’s difficulties understanding what seem like simple concepts. But, in the gap between academics and the general population a special type of intellectual snobbery can sometimes be found.

Obviously, I have a lot more to say about misunderstood academics. For instance, I wanted to address specific issues related to each of the links above. I also had pet peeves about widespread use of concepts and issues like “communities” and “Eskimo words for snow” about which I sometimes need to vent. And I originally wanted this post to be about “cultural awareness,” which ends up being a core aspect of my work. I even had what I might consider a “neat” bit about public opinion. Not to mention my whole discussion of academic obfuscation (remind me about “we-ness and distinction”).

But this is probably long enough and the timing is right for me to do something else.

I’ll end with an unverified anecdote that I like. This anecdote speaks to snobbery toward academics.

[It’s one of those anecdotes which was mentioned in a course I took a long time ago. Even if it’s completely fallacious, it’s still inspiring, like a tale, cautionary or otherwise.]

As the story goes (at least, what I remember of it), some ethnographers had been doing fieldwork  in an Australian cultural context and were focusing their research on a complex kinship system known in this context. Through collaboration with “key informants,” the ethnographers eventually succeeded in understanding some key aspects of this kinship system.

As should be expected, these kinship-focused ethnographers wrote accounts of this kinship system at the end of their field research and became known as specialists of this system.

After a while, the fieldworkers went back to the field and met with the same people who had described this kinship system during the initial field trip. Through these discussions with their “key informants,” the ethnographers end up hearing about a radically different kinship system from the one about which they had learnt, written, and taught.

The local informants then told the ethnographers: “We would have told you earlier about this but we didn’t think you were able to understand it.”

Scriptocentrism and the Freedom to Think

As a comment on my previous blogpost on books, a friend sent me (through Facebook) a link to a blogpost about a petition to Amazon with the following statement:

The freedom to read is tantamount to the freedom to think.

As this friend and I are both anthros+africanists, I’m reacting (perhaps a bit strongly) to that statement.

Given my perspective, I would dare say that I find this statement (brought about by DbD)… ethnocentric.

There, I said it.

And I’ll try to back it up in this blogpost in order to spark even more discussion.

We won’t exhaust this topic any time soon, but I feel there’s a lot we can do about it which has rarely been done.

I won’t use the textbook case of “Language in the Inner City,” but it could help us talk about who decides, in a given social context, what is important. We both come from a literacy-focused background, so we may have to take a step back. Not sure if Bourdieu has commented on Labov, especially in terms of what all this means for “education,” but I’d even want to bring in Ivan Illich, at some point.

Hunters with whom I’ve been working, in Mali, vary greatly in terms of literacy. Some of them have a strong university background and one can even write French legalese (he’s a judge). Others (or some of the same) have gone to Koranic school long enough that can read classical Arabic. Some have the minimal knowledge of Arabic which suffices, for them, to do divination. Many of them have a very low level of functional literacy. There’s always someone around them who can read and write, so they’re usually not out of the loop and it’s not like the social hierarchy stereotypical of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages in Europe. It’s a very different social context which can hardly be superimposed with the history of writing and the printing press in Europe.

In terms of “freedom to thinik,” I really wouldn’t say that they’re lacking. Of course, “free thinker” has a specific meaning in liberal societies with a European background. But even this meaning can be applied to many people I’ve met in Mali.

And I go back to the social context. Those with the highest degree of functional literacy aren’t necessarily those with the highest social status. And unlike Harlem described by Labov, it’s a relatively independent context from the one in which literacy is a sine qua non. Sure, it’s a neocolonial context and Euro-Americans keep insisting that literacy in Latin script is “the most important thing ever” if they are to become a true liberal democracy. Yet, internally, it’s perfectly possible for someone to think freely, get recognition, and help other people to think without going through the written medium.

Many of those I know who have almost nonexistent skills in the written medium also have enough power (in a Weberian sense) that they get others to do the reading and writing for them. And because there are many social means to ensure that communication has worked appropriately, these “scribes” aren’t very likely to use this to take anything away from those for whom they read and write.

In Switzerland, one of my recent ancestors was functionally illiterate. Because of this, she “signed away” most of her wealth. Down the line, I’m one of her very few heirs. So, in a way, I lost part of my inheritance due to illiteracy.

Unless the switch to a European model for notarial services becomes complete, a case like this is unlikely to occur among people I know in Mali. If it does happen, it’s clearly not a failure of the oral system but a problem with this kind of transition. It’s somewhat similar to the situation with women in diverse parts of the continent during the period of direct colonialism: the fact that women have lost what powers they had (say, in a matrilineal/matrilocal society) has to do with the switch to a hierarchical system which put the emphasis on new factors which excluded the type of influence women had.

In other words, I fully understand the connections between liberalism and literacy and I’ve heard enough about the importance of the printing press and journalism in these liberal societies to understand what role reading has played in those contexts. I simply dispute the notion that these connections should be universal.

Yes, I wish the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (including the (in)famous Article 26, which caused so many issues) were more culturally aware.

I started reading Deschooling Society a few weeks ago. In terms of “insight density,” it’s much higher than the book which prompted this discussion. While reading the first chapter, I constructed a number of ideas which I personally find useful.

I haven’t finished reading the book. Yet. I might eventually finish it. But much of what I wanted to get from that book, I was able to get from diverse sources. Including that part of the book I did read, sequentially. But, also, everything which has been written about Illich since 1971. And I’ll be interested in reading comments by the reading group at Wikiversity.

Given my background, I have as many “things to say” about the issues surrounding schooling as what I’ve read. If I had the time, I could write as much on what I’ve read from that book and it’d probably bring me a lot of benefits.

I’ve heard enough strong reactions against this attitude I’m displaying that I can hear it, already: “how can you talk about a book you haven’t read.” And I sincerely think these people miss an important point. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that their reading habits are off (that’d be mean), especially since those are well-adapted to certain contexts, including what I call scriptocentrism. Not that these people are scriptocentric. But their attitude “goes well with” scriptocentrism.

Academia, despite being to context for an enormous amount of writing and reading, isn’t displaying that kind of scriptocentrism. Sure, a lot of what we do needs to be written (although, it’s often surprising how much insight goes unwritten in the work of many an academic). And we do get evaluated through our writing. Not to mention that we need to write in a very specific mode, which almost causes a diglossia.

But we simply don’t feel forced to “read the whole text.”

A colleague has described this as the “dirty little secret” of academia. And one which changes many things for students, to the point that it almost sounds as if it remains a secret so as to separate students into categories of “those who get it” and “the mass.”

It doesn’t take a semester to read a textbook so there are students who get the impression that they can simply read the book in a weekend and take the exams. These students may succeed, depending on the course. In fact, they may get really good grades. But they run into a wall if they want to go on with a career making any use of knowledge construction skills.

Bill Reimer has interesting documents about “better reading.” It’s a PowerPoint presentation accompanied by exercises in a PDF format. (No, I won’t discuss format here.)

I keep pointing students to those documents for a simple reason: Reimer isn’t advocating reading every word in sequence. His “skim then focus” advice might be the one piece which is harder to get through to people but it’s tremendously effective in academic contexts. It’s also one which is well-adapted to the kind of online reading I’m thinking about. And not necessarily that good for physical books. Sure, you can efficiently flip pages in a book. But skimming a text on paper is more likely to be about what stands out visually than about the structure of the text. Especially with book-length texts. The same advice holds with physical books, of course. After all, this kind of advice originally comes from that historical period which I might describe as the “heyday of books”: the late 20th Century. But I’d say that the kind of “better reading” Reimer describes is enhanced in the context of online textuality. Not just the “Read/Write Web” but Instant Messaging, email, forums, ICQ, wikis, hypertext, Gopher, even PowerPoint…

Much of this has to do with different models of human communication. The Shannon/Weaver crowd have a linear/directional model, based on information processing. Codec and modem. Something which, after Irvine’s Shadow Conversations, I tend to call “the football theory of communication.” This model might be the best-known one, especially among those who study in departments of communication along with other would-be journalists. Works well for a “broadcast” medium with mostly indirect interaction (books, television, radio, cinema, press conferences, etc.). Doesn’t work so well for the backchannel-heavy “smalltalk”  stuff of most human communication actually going on in this world.

Some cognitivists (including Chomsky) have a schema-based model. Constructivists (from Piaget on) have an elaborate model based on knowledge. Several linguistic anthropologists (including yours truly but also Judith Irvine, Richard Bauman, and Dell Hymes) have a model which gives more than lipservice to the notion of performance. And there’s a functional model of any human communication in Jakobson’s classic text on verbal communication. It’s a model which can sound as if it were linear/bidirectional but it’s much broader than this. His six “functions of verbal communication” do come from six elements of the communication process (channel, code, form, context, speaker, listener). But each of these elements embeds a complex reality and Jakobson’s model seems completely compatible with a holistic approach to human communication. In fact, Jakobson has had a tremendous impact on a large variety of people, including many key figures in linguistic anthropology along with Lévi-Strauss and, yes, even Chomsky.

(Sometimes, I wish more people knew about Jakobson. Oh, wait! Since Jakobson was living in the US, I need to americanize this statement: “Jakobson is the most underrated scholar ever.”)

All these models do (or, in my mind, should) integrate written communication. Yet scriptocentrism has often led us far away from “texts as communication” and into “text as an object.” Scriptocentrism works well with modernity. Going away from scriptocentrism is a way to accept our postmodern reality.

WordPress MU, BuddyPress, and bbPress on Local Machine

Was recently able to install and integrate three neat products based on Automattic code:

  1. WordPress µ 2.8.1 (a.k.a. WPµ, WordPress MU… Platform for multi-user blogs and Content Management System).
  2. BuddyPress 1.0.2 (A social network system based on WordPress µ).
  3. bbPress 1.0.1 (A forum system based on WordPress).

Did this after attending WordCamp Montreal. The fact that the large majority of WordPress and WordPress µ are merging motivated me, in part, to try it out. I currently serve as webguru for the Society for Linguistic Anthropology.

This is all on a local machine, a Mac mini running Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.

It took me several attempts so it might not be as obvious as one would think.

I wrote as detailed a walkthrough as I could. Not exactly for the faint of heart. And, as IANAC, some things aren’t completely clear to me. I wish I could say I’m able to troubleshoot other people’s problems with these systems, but it’s really not the case. I ended up working out diverse issues, but it took me time and concentration.

A few resources I’ve used:

  1. Andy Peatling’s tutorial on BuddyPress (and WordPress µ) on a Mac.
  2. Sam Bauers’s screencast on integrating WordPress and bbPress. (Not µ or BuddyPress. Requires WordPress.org login.)
  3. Trent Adams’s tutorial on BuddyPress/bbPress integration.
  4. This file: <WPinstall>/wp-content/plugins/buddypress/bp-forums/installation-readme.txt (also available here).

I’ve used many other resources, but they turned out to be confusing, partly because of changes in versions. In fact, the last file was the most useful one. It’s a very different method from the other ones, but it worked. It’s actually much simpler than the other methods and it still gave me what I needed. I now have a working installation of a complete platform which integrates blogging, social networking, and forums. In a way, it’s like having simple versions of Drupal and Ning in the same install. Perfect for tests.

Some conventions.

<dbname> commondb
<name> common
<username> alexandre
<bbname> forums
<adminpass> (generated) 5e6aee85e6d4
<blogname> uethnographer
<blogpass> (generated) 601a6100
<confkey> (generated)
  1. [T] refers to things done in Terminal.app
  2. [B] refers to things done in the browser (Safari.app in my case)
  3. Brackets serve to refer to installation-specific items. I could have used variables.
    1. <dbname> is the database name in MySQL (can be anything)
    2. <name> is the name used for the WordPress install (domain/<name>; can be anything)
    3. <username> is the abbreviated username on the local machine. ~<username> would be the user’s home directory. Determined in Mac OS X.
    4. <bbname> is the name for the bbPress install  (domain/<name>/<bbname>; can be anything)
    5. <adminpass> is the password for the WordPress admin (generated)
    6. <blogname> is the main username for a blog administrator (can be anything)
    7. <blogpass> is the password for that blog administrator (generated)
    8. <confkey> is a confirmation key upon creating that blog administrator (generated)

So, here’s what I did.

  1. Switched to a user with administrative rights on my Mac. I usually work with a non-admin user and grant admin privileges when needed. Quite cumbersome in this case.
  2. Opened Terminal.app
  3. Installed and configured MAMP
    1. Downloaded http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mamp/MAMP_1.7.2.dmg.zip and copied the MAMP folder to /Applications
    2. Opened MAMP.app
    3. Changed MAMP preferences
      1. Preferences
      2. Ports: “Default Apache and MySQL ports”
      3. Apache: Choose: /Users/<username>/Sites
      4. Clicked Ok
  4. Clicked “Open home page” in MAMP
  5. Went to phpMyAdmin
  6. Created a database in phpMyAdmin with <dbname> as the name
  7. Edited /etc/hosts to add: localhost.localdomain
  8. Downloaded WordPress µ through Subversion: [T] svn co http://svn.automattic.com/wordpress-mu/branches/2.8 /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>
  9. Went to my local WordPress µ home: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>
  10. Filled in the necessary information
    1. “Use subdirectories” (subdomains would be a huge hassle)
    2. Database name: <dbname>
    3. User Name: root
    4. Password: root (changing it is a huge hassle)
    5. Title (title for the main WPµ install, can be anything)
    6. Email (valid email for the WPµ admin)
    7. Saved changes
  11. Noted <adminpass> for later use (generated and displayed)
  12. Changed file ownership: [T] chmod 755  /Users/<username>/Sites/<name> /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>/wp-content/
  13. Logged into WPµ admin: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/wp-admin/
    1. User: admin
    2. Password: <adminpass>
  14. Changed plugin options: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/wp-admin/wpmu-options.php#menu
    1. Plugins: check
    2. “Allow new registrations”: “Enabled. Blogs and user accounts can be created.”
    3. “Add New Users”: Yes
    4. “Upload media button”: Checked Images/Videos/Music
    5. “Blog upload space”: 100MB
    6. Clicked “Update Options”
  15. Installed BuddyPress directly
    1. [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/wp-admin/plugin-install.php?tab=plugin-information&plugin=buddypress&TB_iframe=true&width=640&height=542
    2. Clicked “Install”
    3. Clicked “Activate”
    4. Moved BP themes to the right location: [T] mv /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>/wp-content/plugins/buddypress/bp-themes /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>/wp-content/
    5. Moved the BP Default Home theme to the right location: [T] mv /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>/wp-content/bp-themes/bphome/ /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>/wp-content/themes/
    6. Activated the BP Default Home theme: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/wp-admin/wpmu-themes.php
      1. Clicked yes on “BuddyPress Default Home Theme”
      2. Clicked Update Themes
    7. Activated the BP theme
      1. [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/wp-admin/themes.php
      2. Clicked “Activate” on “BuddyPress Default Home”
    8. Added widgets to the BP theme
      1. [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/wp-admin/widgets.php
      2. Placed widgets through drag-and-drop
    9. Checked the BuddyPress install: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>
  16. Installed and integrated bbPress
    1. Downloaded bbPress using Subversion: [T] svn co http://svn.automattic.com/bbpress/trunk/ /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>/<bbname>/
    2. Went through the install process: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/<bbname>/bb-admin/install.php
    3. Go to step 1
    4. Added the following details
      1. Database Name <dbname> (same as WPMU)
      2. Database user root
      3. Database password root
      4. Clicked Save database configuration file
    5. Check for configuration file
    6. Go to Step 2
    7. Added the following details
      1. Add integration settings
      2. Add user database integration settings (without the cookie integration)
      3. User database table prefix wp_
      4. WordPress MU primary blog ID 1
      5. Clicked “Save WordPress integration settings”
    8. Clicked “Go to step 3”
      1. Added the following details
        1. Site Name (Name of the bbPress site, can be anything)
        2. Key Master username admin
        3. First Forum Name (Name of the first forum, can be anything)
        4. Clicked “Save site settings”
    9. Complete the installation
    10. Ignored the warnings
    11. Went through the writing options: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/<bbname>/bb-admin/options-writing.php
      1. Username: admin
      2. Password: <adminpass>
      3. Clicked on XML-RPC Enable the bbPress XML-RPC publishing protocol.
      4. Clicked “Save changes”
    12. Went to the discussion options: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/<bbname>/bb-admin/options-discussion.php
      1. “Enable Pingbacks”: “Allow link notifications from other sites.”
      2. Clicked “Save Changes”
    13. Moved the BuddyPress/bbPress integration plugin to the right location: [T] mv /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>/wp-content/plugins/buddypress/bp-forums/bbpress-plugins/buddypress-enable.php /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>/<bbname>/my-plugins/
    14. Went to the bbPress plugin options: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/<bbname>/bb-admin/plugins.php
      1. Clicked “Activate” on “BuddyPress Support Plugin”
    15. Went to the WPµ site: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>
    16. Clicked “Log Out”
    17. Registered a new user: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/register
      1. Username <blogname>
      2. Email address (blog administrator’s valid email)
      3. Name (full name of blog administrator, can be anything)
      4. Clicked “Next”
      5. “Blog Title” (name of the blog administrator’s main blog, can be anything)
      6. Clicked “Signup”
      7. Checked for email at blog administrator’s email address
      8. Clicked confirmation link: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/activate?key=<confkey>
      9. Noted <blogpass> (generated)
      10. Gave administrative rights to the newly created blog administrator: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/<bbname>/bb-admin/users.php
        1. Logged in with admin/<adminpass>
        2. Clicked on <blogname>: Edit
        3. Clicked on “User Type: Administrator”
        4. Clicked on “Update Profile”
      11. Edited the bbPress configuration file:
        1. [T] open -e /Users/<username>/Sites/<name>/<bbname>/bb-config.php
        2. Added the following:
          1. $bb->bb_xmlrpc_allow_user_switching = true;
          1. (say, after /**#@-*/)
        3. Saved
      12. Went to BuddyPress options: [B] http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/wp-admin/admin.php?page=buddypress/bp-forums/bp-forums-admin.php
        1. Logged in with admin/<adminpass>
        2. Added the following details
          1. bbPress URL: http://localhost.localdomain/<name>/<bbname>/
          1. bbPress username <blogname>
          1. bbPress password <blogpass>
        3. Clicked “Save Settings”
  17. That was it. Phew!

I ended up with a nice testing platform. All plugins I’ve tried so far work quite well, are extremely easy to install, and give me ideas about the SLA’s site.

It was an involved process and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who’s afraid of fiddling with a bit of code. But I did try it out and it seems fairly robust as a method. I could almost create a script for this but that’d mean I might receive support requests that I just can’t handle. I could also make a screencast but that’d require software I don’t have (like Snapz Pro). Besides, I think copy paste is easier, if you remember to change the appropriate items. Obviously, anyone who wants to use this procedure as-is should replace all the bracketed items with the appropriate ones for your install. Some are generated during the process, others you can choose (such as the name of the database).

I’m not extremely clear on how secure this install is. But I’m only running it when I need to.

You can ask me questions in the comments but I really can’t guarantee that I’ll have an answer.