Posted on

Week 4 Summary

In week 4 in Education and Digital Cultures we moved from cyberculture to community cultures, with a reading and preparation week for a micro-ethnography of community within a MOOC commencing in week 5 (today).

The site of much of my posting this week

Posts in my lifestream reflected concerns about how to conduct the micro-ethnography, with a youtube video by a student outlining how to conduct a netnography (Kozinets’ 2002 term for ethnography adapted to the study of online communities) and a video of Kozinets outlining a case study of a netnography for marketing purposes. The former video alluded to the need for caution when declaring your research intentions because it can affect community members willingness to participate. Yet, such a declaration is required ethically (followed up in a post linked to a slide-presentation by Kozinets on the ethics of netnography, and discussion of the risks of ‘decloaking’ anonymised data). The difficulty of declaring research intentions unveiled further concerns about what constitutes an appropriate distance between observer and subject within netnography, which was taken up in Twitter discussion [1, 2, 3] with Chenée Psaros and through reading articles by Hine (2008a, 2008b) and Gatson and Zweerink (2004). The difference between an E3 (Hine, 2015) and a cyberspatial approach to netnography was also briefly investigated.

The notion of community cultures was introduced lightheartedly through a suggestion to Eli Eappleby-Donald that we use Hypothesis to peer annotate web documents for the course, a Twitter shout-out to a friend for advice on what MOOC to focus on, and Timothy Leary’s 1994 prediction that human communication would be taken up by ‘interscreening’. This discussion was deepened through examination of the values, ethos and characteristics of MOOCs, sparked by reading of Stewart’s (2013) paper, and followed up with a youtube clip exploring her earlier (2010) research with McAuley, Siemens & Cormier. Another idea from Stewart’s (2013) paper, that networked learning such as MOOCs can foster the development of participatory cultures and new literacies was interrogated with a focus on what counts as literate with new literacies (and on how these literacies are developed), and the role of meta-level processes in literacy (Belshaw, 2012).

Finally, throughout the week there was discussion between course peers about our visual artefacts [1, 2, 3, 4], which I will continue to comment on this week.

 

Posted on

Week One Summary

There have been several recurring themes for me during the first week of #mscedc:

  • The need for diversity


While setting up IFTTT, Twitter conversation jumped to algorithmic cultures and the ‘filter bubble’ (Pariser, 2011). Starting with boyd’s (2017) ideas of self-segregation, talk turned to motives for such segregation and the need for diversity in networks to support democratic process. The call for diversity was echoed in posts about Ghosts in the Shell, within which characters suggest similarity weakens the group, and difference is the foundation of life.

  • Memory


The short film Memory 2.0, as well as Eter9 (which promises an eternal digital life), caused discomfort connected to memories being recreated potentially without the consent or presence of those involved. Similarly, encounters with extropianism through Dahls’ William & Mary (1961)  and a comic (‘transhumanism gift cards’) raised questions about the ownership of disembodied minds (including memory data) and potential changes in the terms and conditions of service by corporate ‘body’ or ‘eternity’ providers. Memory was also considered in connection to identity in discussion of Robot & Frank (2012) and the character Motoko in Ghost in the Shell.

  • Lack of clarity about the ‘natural’ human

This arose from readings of the body as a site of cultural activity and quest for social distinction (Bourdieu, 1984; Williams & Bendelow, 1998), as well as recognition of the difficulty in defining ‘natural’ human effort in sport.

  • Technology’s influence on culture
Neolithic tools by Michael Greenhalgh (CC BY-SA 2.5)

From the impact of changed affirmation practices on self-segregation to questions of whether being assessed changes participation and musings about the affordances of print vs film, I was repeatedly drawn to the idea of technology not just as tool but as co-creator of culture.