Project Report #2 – Studying Us

Again, I will wrap this report around the expanded properties of rhetoric, with notes and reflections about what I am observing as I apply a coding system to one arbitrarily chosen MOO transcript:

1. A relatively defined group of users

• Can you define/describe by profession? By socio-economic status? By political/religious/(other) ideology?

Political ideology - Leans left politically as a group. A few individuals seem to reflect this in their discourse more than the rest, but I would guess the political conservatives are outnumbered significantly. The fact that I believe academia as a culture, and particularly post-grad programs, is friendlier to the left would support this observation.

Religious ideology – Since religious ideology tends to be at least loosely connected to political ideology, I would guess, again, that the group would lean left. The class discourse really avoids this field of debate however, revealing little about religious preferences. This is probably partially to preserve the mutual respect that is so valuable in an educational environment like this one. But also because in higher education, scholarly truth is generally accepted to be the product of scientific research and observation, meaning that faith-based ideals are not generally considered relevant, if they are considered valid at all.

Socio-economic status - Educationally, this group is obviously above the norm. This would suggest that they would also be above average in economic status, but that’s really conjecture based only the idea that higher education generally leads to higher paying positions. The class discussion reveals little if anything at all about personal economic status.

Profession – At least half the group teaches in some capacity. Others have worked in a variety of fields from engineering to communication related areas such as publishing, graphic design and writing. All are students in the Texas Tech University post-graduate Technical Communications program.

2. A domain of concern

• Why do people come to this discussion/site?
• Why do people stay (or not stay)?

Undoubtedly, we are all in this group because the class fills a course requirement. Given the flexible nature of the programs, however, I would presume that most of us are also here because the topic of this particular course was of special interest, or at least more so than other available options.

As a group (not necessarily everyone in the group equally, but collectively), we seem to share interest in some common issues surrounding the ‘rhetoric of personal agency” including but not limited to: 1) personal agency as it relates to effective teaching methods; 2) social media’s far reaching effects on politics, education, personal relationships, etc.; 3) the impact of web 2.0 on commerce and specifically the music and publishing industries; and 4) the impact of web 2.0 on the future of higher educational institutions and processes.

As I’ve stated before, I also believe that the motivations Shirky mentioned—autonomy and competence—fit nicely here. As professionals seeking a higher, deeper, broader, or more specialized credential, it seems inherent in the situation that in our quest for knowledge we gain a new area or different level of mastery. This achievement would be a driving force in most post-graduate work.

My original intent was to come up with an informal survey for class participants, and I haven’t ruled that out. However at this point, I’m not sure that a survey would reveal any new information.

3. A (more or less) clearly articulated catalog of effective usage

• What are the "master terms" that are repeated?
• What is the apparent level (socio-economic/educational) of articulation or expression?
• What is the emotional "volume" of the interaction?
• What are the markers of "commitment" to the issues at hand?

Obviously, the level of articulation and expression in the MOO is extremely high. The emotional ‘volume’ seems to match. Not sure about markers of commitment. I don’t think I really understand what this point is asking.

Master Terms or Buzz Words (still adding….)

cognitive surplus
collective intelligence
media convergence
participatory culture
social media
web 2.0
aggregate
transformational
rhetoric / rhetorical
agency
universal knowledge
adhocracy
prosumers
global / globalization

4. A (more or less) understood set of applicable psychological levers

• How do people attempt to convince others?
• Do people ever play the "status card"?
• What is the nature of the "evidence" people assert to create their validity as a discussant and the validity of the points they make?
• What are the markers of antagonism (digs) that people employ, if ever?
• What are the markers of colloquy, of friendship, of approval that people use?

Three primary psychological levers:

References – One of the ways individuals in this group attempt to establish credibility (ethos) is by referencing outside sources such as books, journal articles, or websites. Not surprisingly, the most common use of this lever is to reference the course materials (Shirky, Jenkins or Lessig), since those texts have been a big part of our discussions, and presumably, everyone has read (or is reading) them. Referring to these three demonstrates comprehension of the material, but is the weakest form of this lever since the readings are required. More powerful are references to additional scholarly works, since these references demonstrate a wider knowledge base and possibly insinuate a more rigorous approach to the class (i.e. reading beyond what is required).

Challenge statements – In coding the transcript, one of my comment labels was ‘Challenge.’ I assigned this label to any statement made in response to someone else’s assertion, which basically challenged the truth or validity of that assertion, or questioned it in some manner. These kinds of comments in the MOO seem to be a rhetorical move aimed, again, at establishing ethos. If I challenge someone else’s opinion or idea, I am communicating that I am confident in my own knowledge or understanding. This seems especially true if the challenge is directed at the professor.

Emote comments - As I would have predicted, the emote function in the MOO is a primary tool used for establishing empathy (pathos), friendship or approval. I was somewhat surprised to find that we employ these emote comments, which were primarily tagged as ‘Sub-Text’ in my coding system, almost as often as the other more content-directed comments. I think this indicates that even in an online environment, building relationships is an important aspect of the class interaction. I would predict, in fact, that we utilize these levers much more in the MOO than we would in a f2f class setting, where such comments might seem patronizing, shallow, or too expressive.

I don’t see any evidence in our dialogue of antagonism that could be classified as a dig or jab. I also don’t see evidence of any attempts at sarcasm (either positive or negative), which relies heavily on tone of voice to carry its meaning. The scholarly context seems to dictate a silent yet effective code of mutual respect and collective inquiry. Again, I would theororize that this code is more strictly enforced and honored in the online setting where non-verbal communication, so essential in assessing the underlying tone of sarcastic or cutting remarks, isn’t accessible.