Lifestream, Comment on @james858499 Footnotes still allow for single-author assignment. Ditto library catalogues. But, single-author rare in some dsciplns? #mscedc by msleeman

Renee, thanks for this – and for the alert to the very-well-hidden hyperlink. I wouldn’t have found it without your second comment!
The graphs risk masking something acknowledged in the accompanying text, namely that ” the annual number of single-author, non-review papers themselves, as tracked since 1981, has remained largely consistent in the course of the three decades”. The declining percentage share reflect the increase in multi-author pieces, not so much the decline in the single-authored pieces per se. Clearly a complex picture is in view.
Also, I’m curious that there is no category for ‘humanities’: presumably it’s incorporated within ‘social sciences’. I’d imagine, within that category, there are lots of sub-sectors, each with their own practices, circulations and markets. Different assemblages, reacting to and with digital cultures in differing ways. Great to have some data-led insight on it, and inviting of more. Many thanks!

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog

Lifestream, Comment on Tweetorial analysis – Where is Angela? by Renee Furner

Great reflection on what is missing in the data, Dirk. Thanks for sharing.

Regarding my mentions per tweet ranking, here’s some data from outside the ‘window’: I’m pretty sure the cause was simply my ‘early’ response to tweets.. which was influenced by ‘cultural-based time zone factors’, since in my region Friday is a weekend day (meaning I could respond quickly to James’ tweets on Friday morning without work interrupting .. ), and I’m +3 GMT so wasn’t sleeping till the later tweets.

‘Is any of the presented data and data analysis relevant at all? Does it say anything about quality?’

Wondering, do you have any ideas about the kind of analysis (and method) that would (or rather ‘might’) produce a relevant, meaningful interpretation? For example, if you were interviewed about the experience, and asked about what you found most useful/meaningful or which of the Tweet (either questions or responses) prompted the most thought on your part, or about what you felt or thought at the time, would we get closer to ‘relevant’? & if the interviews were repeated with all participants? It would be time consuming, yes, but.. would it reveal something worth uncovering?

What if (for a touch of the creepy) your web-camera had filmed you while tweeting, and captured signs of your mood, algorithmically interpreted? Or measurements of delay between reading a tweet and responding to it?

What in your mind is missing from the data that is required to make it meaningful?

Thanks again,


from Comments for Argonauts of the Western Pathetic

Lifestream, Comment on Algorithmic experiment by Renee Furner

What a great idea, Stuart & Chenée!

The results were interesting too – I was surprised by the results to search 5, and the seeming existence of a ‘geographic memory’ despite your setting having been cleared.

I was also surprised that your Google topics were updated so rapidly: when I deleted a bunch (but nowhere near all – just a selection) of YouTube video from my browsing history (in youtube), my Google topics reverted to ‘none’ and did not update until the next day.

Your finding about comments in YouTube was another point of interest for me. During the MOOC micro-ethnography, I left comments on videos that we’d been asked to watch on youtube, to see if I could get some dialogue going outside of the Coursera platform, but didn’t get any responses. Your findings may suggest that in situations such as mine (then), algorithms can work against the establishment of community.

Super to read – thank you.

from Comments for Stuart’s EDC blog

Life stream, Comment on Linked from Pocket: Google tells invisible army of ‘quality raters’ to flag Holocaust denial by Weekly round up – week 9 – Eli’s EDC blog

[…] Adventuring through classmates’ blogs this week also gave me a couple of smiles, Claire and I have a TV show in common and Renee found a brilliant infographic which I stole. I also enjoyed some recommended readings this week which tied into an article I shared from my pocket. […]

from Comments for Eli’s EDC blog

Lifestream, Comment on Learning Analytics: The Emergence of a Discipline, Siemens (2013) – Collab Notes by Renee Furner

An admirable attempt to get some choral explanations going – sorry to hear it didn’t gain the traction you’d hoped.
Have you ever worked with a federated wiki? I wanted to get one going last year for my students (I teach EAP), but my peers seemed responded a little like I was speaking in tongues (you want to .. what a post? ‘Fork’?) and I couldn’t gain institutional support to host individual wikis for students to federate.In the end.. well, life and new projects.
An easier approach to writing together seems to be annotating together – for example, using, not quite the same though, I realise.. Good on you for giving collaboration a shot.

from Comments for Daniel’s EDC blog

Lifestream, Comment on Micro-ethnography by Renee Furner

This is a really engaging read, Stuart ‘ thank you!
The digital cacophony at the beginning was really disorienting ‘ I can see why people may want to turn away from it when learning.

One of the points I thought of with regard to the scale of MOOCs (and mine was an infant compared to yours) was that in order to participate in forums, users need a sense of the history of that forum. Without this knowledge, the information can be overwhelming, and if enough people lack knowledge of the history, participation norms are difficult if not impossible to establish.

As one of the ‘steps to success’ in a MOOC
, Cormier suggests that participants need to ‘cluster’, so that they can filter the noise/information, and make it manageable.

It seems though, that within your MOOC there was no opportunity to network and find those on with shared interests (excepting Chenée) – and similarly I’ve seen scant evidence of this in our peer’s ethnographies. What kind of environment would have supported that, I wonder?

Really interesting observations – a pleasure to read.


from Comments for Stuart’s EDC blog

Lifestream, Comment on My microethnography: Stories of a MOOC #mscedc by Renee Furner

Another really impressive and creative piece from you Anne – thank you. It’s a really emotive arrangement.

I really liked your comment:
“When MOOC members go beyond participation and become teachers, contributors and storytellers, the online community is enriched and strengthened.”

In a sense, the MOOC members are projecting themselves into the community – their experience, their feelings, their history their knowledge. In this sense the location of what is valued/what can be learned from becomes ‘distributed’.

I also thought that one reason your MOOC might have been more participatory is the role of empathetic listening when dealing with such fraught subject matter. While we should listen empathetically more frequently, I doubt many do (certainly based on most of our peers’ experiences in their MOOCs). In contrast, one’s humanity prevents one from speaking over or ignoring sensitive subject matter, or those things very important to another (like in Philip’s MOOC). Maybe listening is the key (an idea which I must also credit to Linzi, through her posts on my blog).

Thanks again for sharing. Your artefact construction is inspirational!

from Comments for Anne’s EDC blog

Lifestream, Comment on A Micro-Ethnography? by Renee Furner

Your wry observations made me smile, Dirk – and it was, as others have commented, impressively crafted.
I’m interested to know what the course materials were like for creating online and blended learning – were they similarly ‘instructionist’?
You note that those seeking an online course should be careful to choose something that matches what they are looking for – be it community or content. Do you think that the choice of ‘best’ learning environment is just down to individual preference, or do some have more pedagogic value than others?

Also – I blogged about ‘the intimacy of the xMOOC’ while on IDEL. If you’re interested, I’ve opened the post up – I can’t seem to see how to make it public but you should be able to view it when logged-in to EASE. If it doesn’t work (and you’re still keen to read it – there is mention of pyjamas, ice cream and toilet trips) let me know, and I’ll add you as a user.

from Comments for Argonauts of the Western Pathetic

Lifestream, Comment on Digital_Ethnography by Renee Furner

Even though it wasn’t what you fully intended, I thought this was very nicely put together, Clare. Your use of image is really effective.

For the 5000 participants, was this on this, single iteration of your course or spread of previous iterations as well? If just this one, then wow – that really is massive!

I liked your observation that “Many people applied the taught elements to their own local community based projects.” Perhaps nowadays when our lives are so enmeshed in technology we are less likely to seek community online (i.e. because tech is ubiquitous the novelty and or utopian vision has worn off somewhat). Certainly I’m aware that I’m generally (not always) more likely to engage in dialogue about concepts from my studies with friends and local peers than I am with fellow course participants.

Or, has the rise of SNSs changed the types of community we seek online? Moving away from affinity groups and towards communities based on established relational (friendship/peer) networks? Or, perhaps it is as Walther (1997) suggests, and community is to a degree dependent on anticipated future interaction… more questions than answers from me (as usual), I’m afraid.

Thanks for sharing.


from Comments for Clare’s EDC blog

Lifestream, Comment on MSCEDC MOOC Ethnography by Renee Furner

This is another really well-executed artefact, Helen. You really captured the discordance you experienced between the course subject matter or content and the mode of delivery. This was conveyed especially well through your use of sound. I also enjoyed your integration of theory – it was a very thoughtful piece.

On your question of whether there may be an ‘inherent dissonance between form and content when delivering some subjects via a MOOC’, I wonder which aspect(s) of the course delivery contributed most significantly to the sense of dissonance.   You highlighted the number of participants (the massiveness), a potential overload of tasks, disruptive notifications, and quantified participation/completion notices – did any of these stand out as being more significant to you than the others?

Also, were there any opportunities to give feedback on participant experience? (or, have you noticed any later in the course?) I watched a talk recently by Tressie McMillen Cottom [blogged about here] in which she noted that what we collect information about is selective: our tools are very good at analysing time spent on tasks, but not at figuring out what people have learned or experienced. It seems that collecting information about participants’ experience on your course in particular, due to its subject matter, would be key to improving future iterations.

I really enjoyed your artefact – thanks for sharing it.

from Comments for Helen’s EDC blog