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.