Another Great Podcast Run

Well I'm trying to climb out of the post Jenkins hole I seem to have fallen into. After finishing Convergence Culture, I tried to dabble in a couple of free reports that I think Jon posted: one by Jenkins called Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture and another by Carrie James on Young People, Ethics and the New Digital Media. I also got caught up reading Jenkins' 3-part blog series in which he answered an esteemed critic of his book, Ian Bogost (http://henryjenkins.org/2006/08/hmm_buttery_a_response_to_ian.html). This exchange was really interesting, sort of like watching Jenkins explain himself to the jury. It helped clarify his ideas for me a little bit. I wanted to read Turkle, but was afraid to get sidetracked knowing that Lessig is looming large before me. So into Lessig I have plunged (OK, more like stuck in my big toe to test the waters, but at least I'm in the vicinity).

Podcast #6 was particularly interesting to me and generated several random reflections. Hope I can remember:

Dr. K's discussion about effective discourse, and his comments about the nature of the MOO, got me thinking about what kinds of "moves" or "levers" we use there. Particularly, what purpose does the non-class related, background rhetoric serve? You know, the banter about turbans, old girlfriends, and margaritas.... It may seem less valuable than the communication about deep, rhetorical concepts, but is it? Or is it somehow an integral part of the rhetorical situation?

Geertz - I'm adding him to my reading list. Like stringing beads on a piece of yarn with no knot...

Process over product? I think this is, perhaps, one path to the heart 5369 and our collective inability to define our existence last week, at least to the satisfaction of the prof 'zenning' the class (Nancy's term for leading by pondering...very descriptive). Beyond course requirements for a degree plan, I heard several comments that indicated a common thread: we love being here and interacting with smart people about a topic that interests us. Some online communities may serve a more concrete purpose; others may exist primarily because the participants experience in it a satisfaction that may difficult to pin down, yet is nonetheless very real.

Writing vs. Face to Face - which is more real? I sort touched on this topic in my previous blog (Progress Report #1) in trying to articulate what I see as the differences between the MOO and a traditional classroom. Person to person interaction may have the historical edge, but online interaction like what happens in the MOO seems more pure to me. And wouldn't more pure equate to more natural? Online communication isn't weighed down by social perceptions.

Probability and project methodology - I must admit I'm struggling with the how at this point. So it was helpful for me to focus on the concept of probability, and on the idea that we are not trying to achieve, nor are we claiming, any kind of rigorous research credibility. We are trying to gain insight into something that is slippery, complex, and ultimately impossible to neatly nail down.

Progress Report #1 - Studying Us

I need to start this report by listing our four properties, along with their paraphrased equivalents, mainly for my own benefit. They are serving as my reference point and guide:

1. A relatively defined group of users (try to identify who seems to be typical participants)
2. A domain of concern (try to figure out from their discourse why they are doing this)
3. A (more or less) clearly articulated catalog of effective usage (dig down into the typical words and expressions they use)
4. A (more or less) understood set of applicable psychological levers (try to figure out how they "score points" among the community)

As I evaluate my progress, and what I’m thinking and observing so far about our class community, I’m still drawn to the four questions I posed in my proposal:

1. How do we, as a group, reflect the key concepts put forth by Shirky and Jenkins: cognitive surplus, media convergence, participatory culture and collective intelligence?

To state what several have already observed, this graduate class, as part of a traditional, academic institution, is, in many ways, a microcosm of the very concepts we are exploring. Representing several cities and states within the US, and spread across three continents, it is only by the virtue of the internet that we exist as a community.

However beyond that, one of the things I’ve observed about our interaction as a class that is a direct result of the fact that we are meeting online and not in a traditional classroom, is that no one is able to ‘hide in the corner.’ While a physical setting offers one the option of habitually slipping into a seat in the back row for an entire semester, never really interacting with either the instructor or the other students, the online setting redefines ‘participation.’ To participate in the MOO requires more than just my physical presence in front of the computer screen, since my contribution to the dialogue is the only evidence of my engagement. In other words, if I’m not actively joining in the conversation, I’m virtually invisible. In addition, the MOO creates a kind of equivalency, or a level playing field, of communication, meaning that each of our contributions, stripped of voice inflection, facial expression, or any other visual cue, is weighed solely on its own merits. In contrast, in a face-to-face classroom setting, any number of factors might add or detract ‘agency’ from an expressed idea or thought, such as the physical appearance, age or verbal ability of the speaker. By encouraging individual active participation and giving everyone an equal voice, the online class forum facilitates a rhetoric of personal agency based on a culture of collaboration.

2. What drives us? How can our motives be characterized, beyond fulfilling degree requirements? I believe Shirky’s ideas on autonomy and competence will frame this answer.

I’ve concluded that to ask why each of us is taking English 5369 this semester doesn’t seem to be the right question. As an offering in either the Masters or PhD program which each of us has committed to, this class fills a requirement. We’re here, in one sense, because this class is part of an institutional plan. However, the fact that the course has such a practical application in no way mitigates the its benefits. So I believe the more relevant question is What do we, as individual scholars and professionals, feel that we are gaining from the class?

In order to gain insight into this question, I’m trying to develop a simple questionnaire for each class member to respond to. By asking you to assign relative value to what I believe are the primary benefits, I hope that we can draw some conclusions that might even answer Dr. Kemp’s query, “Why do we exist?”

3. What are we each trying to accomplish specifically through our discourse in the MOO? What techniques do we employ? How does the setting (MOO) affect the discourse (in contrast to a real world setting)?

4. I am particularly interested in examining our use of the ‘emote’ function, and what we gain by articulating thoughts in third person.

To answer these two questions, I am plowing around in the MOO transcripts and trying to identify some specific patterns that I might be able to code and record (for example classifying comments as content related, digression/redirection, personal aside, comic relief). This is a work in progress. As I analyze, I’m looking for those levers; the rhetorical tools we use to score points. I have a couple of ideas that I’m looking at, but I’m not ready to articulate those.

I’m also looking at the ‘emote’ comments and possibly working to categorize them in some manner as well (I will select one transcript to code, not all). I liked Nancy’s comment on the discussion board in which she referred to the emote feature as ‘sub-text.’ I think that is a very descriptive term. I want to look carefully at how we make use of this device, and see if it matches up with my observations.

Finally, I’m engaged in my own personal self-discovery/crash course regarding the various approaches to discourse analysis, trying to define and establish what method seems to fit this research situation, and how to implement it.

Transformation

I've been working (for my day job) on making some of our books available as ebooks. I could ramble a good bit about the learning curve going on there with html, but that's for a different blog. As a small, niche publisher, going digital was something we should have done a long time ago, but time, resources and the aforementioned learning curve were all hurdles. Last week, primarily as a result of the transformational affect this class has had on my thinking, I decided it was time for Amazon (and Facebook...but again, that's for another blog). In the process of reading through a bunch of forums on file conversion, I learned that Amazon, not surprisingly, uses its own unique file type, while the other main competitors all share a more universal format. Also not surprisingly, I observed that there is no shortage of conversion software designed to help readers move their ebooks from one platform to the other. As a participatory culture, we don't like limits or restrictions on our media. If we buy an ebook, we feel completely entitled to read it on whatever techno gadget we want.

So I was thinking this morning that maybe I should splurge for a Kindle so that I could keep what promises to be a rapidly expanding list of class books all in one tidy, digital location and off of my already overflowing bookshelves. And I was debating with myself about which particular reader, given the conversion issues, would make the most sense. I thought that if enough people gripe about not being able to read their Amazon ebooks on a Nook, or if enough people find ways to work around the limitation with readily available free software, eventually Amazon would likely be compelled to conform. Then a spontaneous thought hit me and I said to my chocolate lab, "That would be an example of the power of personal agency pushing media convergence!" She agreed. She's a very smart dog.

Not a revolutionary observation I guess, but a positive indication that the ideas of Shirky, Jenkins and Kemp have indeed taken up residence in my brain....

A Proposal

Although I have a personal, curious interest in how and why seniors interact online, for the purposes of this class project I’ve made the difficult decision to stick with my original idea to ‘study us.' I have a professional interest in distance learning and educational technology, so I don’t want to pass up the opportunity to look critically at the epicenter of an online class: the live, personal interaction between students and instructor.

Some initial questions I want to focus on are:

1. How do we, as a group, reflect the key concepts put forth by Shirky and Jenkins: cognitive surplus, media convergence, participatory culture and collective intelligence?

2. What drives us? How can our motives be characterized, beyond fulfilling degree requirements? I believe Shirky’s ideas on autonomy and competence will frame this answer.

3. What are we each trying to accomplish specifically through our discourse in the MOO? What techniques do we employ? How does the setting (MOO) affect the discourse (in contrast to a real world setting)?

4. I am particularly interested in examining our use of the ‘emote’ function, and what we gain by articulating thoughts in third person.

Having set my target and some research questions, my next step is to review several resources on discourse analysis and establish a plan for quantitative and qualitative data gathering. I will be looking for one primary source that clearly outlines basic approaches and methodologies to instruct my work. While I will examine every MOO transcript, my thought (at this point) is to identify one sampling on which to focus the quantitative research.

To Dr. Kemp: So You Want Me to Fly?

[A response to the post-class dialogue]

Ask me about page design. Ask me about style sheets. Ask me about grammar. Ask me about print cost, pre-press, or copyright registration. Even ask me about the finer points of a volleyball jump serve. But if you want me to fly, just don't ask me about the rhetoric of personal agency. Not quite yet. I'm still learning to walk.

It's not about lack of enthusiasm or desire...I'm in this class without the guarantee that I even have a future in the MATC program. I'm here because I wanted to be; because I couldn't wait. I wanted to dive in as soon as I started reading the course offerings. The journey had to start somewhere, at some point, and this was as good a time and place as any, I supposed.

But I am laying the tracks down even as I'm racing over them. Personal agency, collective intelligence, rhetorical analysis, participatory culture, ethnography--I've encountered all of these ideas for the first time in this class. I don't have the research history to lean on that others do. I'm at the beginning; they're nearing the end. I'm learning a new language and trying to be fluent all in one ambitious leap.

So you're going to have to exercise some patience, oh rhetorical master. Push me. Challenge me. Make me think critically. But don't neglect to teach me too. I need to know what you know before I can question it, build on it and move it forward. I need to benefit from your experience and wisdom. Graduate school, or more specifically an educational model that relies on the very thing we are trying to explore, personal agency, is necessarily constructed to engage students in seeking out knowledge for themselves. Yet against that backdrop, your role is more critical than ever. I need direction, and some parameters. Your presence is not a limitation, but a standard and a guide, so that I don't wander off the course into irrelevance.

I want to fly. And I will. But I'm smart enough to understand the value of a few good lessons. And wise enough to know that there is no substitute, not even with all the internet has to offer, for the tangible, touchable erudition of someone who knows more than I do. Respecting and learning from a teacher or mentor isn't some dusty, outdated pedagogical theory; it's a foundational, timeless truth.

Off to finish Jenkins, and see how he explains the idea that social media can be oppressive...

Window Washing, Uninvited

I pulled up to an intersection the other day and there was a man on the corner with a bucket, a squeegee, and some rags. He was cleaning windshields, looking for a few bucks. He moved toward my car. I tried to wave him off...I didn't want my windshield cleaned. But there he was, wetting, squeegeeing (is this a word?!), and wiping. He was the most enthusiastic windshield washer I've ever seen. And he did a very good job. So was I now obligated to pay him?

This is what I thought of as I read Jenkins' chapter on the Potter wars, and the murky line of ownership between those who create stories, and those who love them. The fans who consume these original works and then become consumed by them; writing themselves (uninvited) into the fantasies may be enthusiastic, and even very good. But neither their passion nor their talent gives them ownership. Should they be able to engage with the material, and with each other? Of course. And is this good for the publishers/studios? Absolutely! But should the fans be able to alter the stories? Should they be able to politicize them? Create new characters? Reinvent the plot? Hmm. Coming from a publishing perspective, I'd have to stand with the creators. You may be very enthusiastic, and you may do an excellent job, but if the work was unsolicited, you may or may not receive the compensation you hope for.

Contemplating Jenkins

If Shirky's cognitive surplus theology was a bit rosy, then Jenkins' ideologies of media convergence, participatory culture, and collective intelligence feel like they border on egocentric at times. Not that I could question the ideas themselves...Jenkins, the MIT professor, is undoubtedly much more clever than I am, and the ideas are interesting enough. It just seems funny to me that for a couple of millennium or so, people have been relating, learning, inventing, and educating without multi-modal media and without participating in global collaboration. Yet Jenkins can make these concepts sound almost messianic.

And side note: who's idea was it to fill the pages with extended, loosely related examples in the sidebars? His publisher should be sanctioned....

I was reading about media literacy today, and had issue with his fundamental comparison of Heather's right to co-opt Rowling's material for her own writing pleasure (or more broadly, fans' right to co-opt any published material they consume) to literacy as we know it. He asserts:

All of the above suggests that the Potter wars are at heart a struggle over what rights we have to read and write about core cultural myths—that is, a struggle over literacy. Here, literacy is understood to incude not simply what we can do with printed matter but also what we can do with media. Just as we would not traditionally assume that someone is literate if they can read but not write, we should not assume that someone possesses media literacy if they can consume but not express themselves.

More to come...

You and Me. And Bingo.

If I'd met you all at a dinner party, you wouldn't know half of what you know about me just from this blog, because I probably wouldn't tell you f2f. We'd talk about the weather and the food and the news of the day. Funny how the internet, which is often accused of being too impersonal, can be so much more personal than being there in person! One of the dynamics that has always fascinated me about it is how it removes any preconceived ideas or judgments we could have about people (conscious or otherwise) based on appearance. We're influenced, whether we think so or not. But on the web, we meet new people based solely, or at least primarily, on their written expression of thoughts and ideas.

I found some great discussion groups on the AARP site today. Some of the most popular topics: bingo, dating, job hunting, politics, religion, online games and pets. Aside from maybe the desire to chat about bingo, it would appear that seniors online are...well...pretty much like the rest of us online...

Chasing Digital Rabbits

So I'm working my way through Twitter, and trying to define this blog space, and I'm pretty sure a wiki is in my future. And I want to spend some time reading about 1) rhetorical analysis/discourse analysis, 2) the Turkle book that's been mentioned several times (Alone Together), and 3) the little book that Dr. Kemp recommended to me on literary criticism and rhetoric (Literary Theory by Terry Eagleton). And of course I am daily thinking about the project and those 4 properties...

All of this has somewhat sidetracked me from Jenkins, which I'm now stuck in the middle of.

The First MOO

The first time I attempted to water ski, my cadre of well-meaning instructors failed to emphasize the importance of one seemingly obvious directive: when you fall, let go of the rope. You might think that would be second nature, but to the 8-year-old mind, letting go of the rope, and thus the boat and my only connection with the safety of dry land, was anything but natural. It was counter-intuitive.

Fortunately, I didn't drown. But for a few very long moments, I imagined I might. Searching for air, I felt disoriented and completely at the mercy of the motor boat.

Maybe a dramatic analogy, but I've jumped into the social media river (or been pushed? :-)and it feels more like a tidal wave. I can't seem to come up, but I don't want to let go either.

After my first MOO, and before I created this blog, I typed out a response to no one in particular. I will post it here as my first official blog, since that's really what it was:

__________________________________

January 19, 2011

I learned a lot last night in my first MOO encounter. It was a blur, so I’m still processing. I had to go back over the transcript this morning and reread every comment; I totally missed some good ones. And I made a ‘character list’ for this journey, writing down everything that each of you shared about yourselves. That’s the thing about online relationships—being a fairly visual person, I struggle to put that composite picture together in my mind without the face to face contact.

So rather than putting together some web content, which I am supposed to be doing right now, I’m thinking about this class, and the ‘rhetoric’ from last night. Here are my observations and thoughts that I would have inserted, had I not been a tad overwhelmed trying to keep up. In keeping with the theme of the class, they are in no particular order.

When I logged off and sat thinking back to all I had just read, I found myself frustrated, knowing that I had just participated in a vibrant, interaction, with people from all over the globe, yet unable to remember or hold on to much of it. To me, it represented the nature of social networking and personal agency in a microcosm.

I met a bunch of interesting new people, how many, I wasn’t even sure until I reread this morning. I watched you go by like a fast moving train, catching glimpses now and then of a face or a voice, and thinking how fun it would be to have a conversation. You’re all smart and witty and incredibly intelligent. Intimidating even. But every face was a blur, there and gone. I listened, yet wouldn’t say we really conversed, because that would imply that there was dialogue back and forth, and it moved much too fast for that. It was loud, and social, and loosely organized, kind of like a dinner party, with everyone having their own conversations at once. Takes some getting used to.

I live in The Woodlands, TX, which is about 35 miles north of Houston. I have been working from home for the past 15 years as a ghostwriter and editor for a self-started publishing company. We partner with a non-profit ministry organization and do conferences across the US. I’m also currently working as a consultant for a local radio station on some web content (the thing I need to be working on which I’m not). This is an area of growing interest to me and I find it a fascinating new (to me) arena for writing.

I love to write, but admittedly only about things that I can muster some passion for. Otherwise, it’s really laborious. I enjoy reading, although I do it slowly. I sort of absorb books more than read them. And I’m a thinker, a contemplative kind of person. In a room full of people (or apparently also a MOO), I tend to listen more than I talk. Other people interest me. It’s not that I don’t have anything to say, but I like to process, and chew, and think, and then speak. It’s not a quality that lends itself easily to social media, where conversations happen at wireless speed and everything is in tweet sized parcels. How in the world do you train your brain to think that way? Mine doesn’t. In a few years, maybe people like me will become extinct due to natural selection, trampled by the speed of this new rhetoric.

So obviously this is my first class in MATC, but I’m actually not even in the program yet. I discovered it too late to apply for spring, but couldn’t wait until fall to start. I’d been thinking about a Master’s for a long time, but never was motivated enough I guess until I found this. I read the class descriptions online like a menu in my favorite restaurant. It was a moment of epiphany, that something so tailored to the things I love, or want to love, existed. I was too excited! Joyce was nice enough to humor me by giving me this class, even as I’m perched out on the proverbial limb.

At 43, I think of myself as being pretty tech savvy, or I did. Although I do still keep my calendar on a paper ‘day runner’ (the same one I’ve had for 15 years….I buy the refills every December), I love my iphone, mess around on Facebook, and live on my computer. However, I discovered last night that I am, I’m afraid, to the new waves of social media and technology like Fred Flinstone would be to modern transportation.

I observed in last night’s conversation an interesting thing about social media. While ‘personal agency’ has a rhetoric of its own, which I guess we are attempting to explore, within each community, there is a unique dialect that defines and connects the members (and possibly keeps others out). People new to the community may find it hard to jump in until they’ve learned the lingo. This is, of course, true in ‘f2f’ communities also, but the effects are compounded when interaction is stripped of all other forms of communication, leaving only the dialogue.

I also observed, as I already made reference to, that the media age presses communication into tiny, bite sized pieces, rewarding the quick-witted, efficient mind and eschewing contemplation by its very structure. Does that make it shallow? Maybe. It’s a soundbite environment…wide, but not necessarily very deep (can you say ADD?) It doesn’t sit on the porch and sip tea. It is in constant motion.

Much of what I know about social media I’ve learned from my teenager. Perhaps this digital transformation is making this upcoming generation more flexible and adaptable as you discussed last night. But what concerns me is that a new set of social ‘rules of engagement’ seem to be lagging far behind. The idea about shifting the power from adults to young people has some truth, but it’s not just about empowerment, it’s about connection, or disconnection. My comment about boys who used to have to go through mom or dad to speak with girlfriend, now have free (meaning no restraints) and total access, 24/7. One of the costs of leveling the rhetorical playing field through social media is the loss of social hierarchy, which may seem like a good thing, but it has a slippery downside. Without hierarchy, respect loses its context. Respect for time, for privacy, for age, for position…many of my daughters friends and people her age have NO idea how to interact with an adult because they’ve never had to learn. It’s hard to teach your child that it’s important to address her friend’s mother as “Mrs. Walker” when she never has any occasion to have to speak to Mrs. Walker. That something has been lost in the transition is evident in reports of suicides brought on by shocking disregard for the power of transmission and any concept of propriety. That’s what I was thinking when I asked, “Young people know how to operate the technology, but do they know how to use it?” It isn’t inherently good or bad in and of itself. Not until we give it a purpose.