Revisiting my blog posts at the end of semester has led me to trace back over emergent – and discarded - thoughts about my research topic and highlighted for me the difficulty in marrying theory with practical research – and the difficulty in predicting subject response rates.
The blog has two main themes: practical methods for research and an exploration of ideas around how people make sense of their technology use.
Early on, it became evident from observations of the subject site that there were not many examples of ‘knowledge creation’, and those rather shallow and fleeting, leading me to drop this concept from the research project.
On reflecting on the sensemaking post after conducting several interviews, I can wholeheartedly agree with the idea that people use ‘extracted cues’ of the familiar to make sense of a situation: almost without fail, when asked to describe the subject site interviewees compared it to Facebook. In trying to put the forum questions into action, I’ve found that it is easier to ask people to talk than to write answers and a personal message is useful in gaining a response. One comment from an interviewee was that he would answer multiple-choice questions, but written answers were a quick turn-off.
I think that the post relating uncertainty about the method of virtual ethnography is understandable, as it is a loose, flexible approach. I am reminded of the advice of a research methods lecturer to immerse myself in the data and get to know it inside and out. Patterns and ideas will then emerge.
As a planner, one ‘a-ha’ idea that has come from sensemaking is how it is an ongoing process; that, in a way, any start or plan is OK as long as it results in action. Actions shape the outcome and the process is more important than the initial plan. Rather ethnographic in its philosophy.
Towards the end of the semester, my attention has been with the emotional and sensual relationship that people have with technology. In the idea of ‘perturbation’ introduced by the authors of ‘Technology as Experience’ (McCarthy & Wright, 2004), I think I’ve found an interesting line of thought. The level of tolerance for disruptive technologies and the necessary effort they require is, perhaps self-evidently, a high indicator of openness to using online tools. If people have put in effort and realised personally useful results from using technology, they will be more likely to invest time in a new technology even if its benefits aren’t immediately evident. Balancing the disturbance of new technologies against positive rewards, keeping promised rewards higher than the perceived effort required; there is a role for a technology mediator to actively encourage a technology’s use before the balance favours the rewards side.
Writing a blog for the course has been a more personal response to material: a chance to sort out my own opinions and relate ideas to experience. As one post outlined, the personal background and opinions of the researcher influence research questions and interpretation of data. The inevitable bias of authorship is one more contextual factor in research.
Reference:
McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Reflection on method
The request to view online materials, focusing on particular group, had an overall response of around around one third, with a better response from currently active students. The older groups only garnered one or two responses. The documentary group of 13 produced six positive and two negative responses, with the remainder not replying. This is enough to gain a good overview of the group. I will describe the group’s interactions generally and use the consenting members’ posts to illustrate.
The documentary group can be placed within a general description of the types of interactions and purposes of the other groups in the site. To quote or reference particular posts from these groups will require another, possibly vain, attempt to gain permission for use. With the initial response to the request to use online materials plus the permission from interview subjects to use their posts, I will have a good number of individuals that I will be able to examine and quote in detail.
It is difficult in an interview to strike a balance between not imposing one’s own ideas and maintaining a relaxed, conversational atmosphere. I think that I have been reasonably successful in allowing the interviewee to choose their topics and responses. However, I did find myself adding some leading phrases, usually based on what the interviewee had mentioned; in trying to ‘reflect’ the interviewee’s ideas, I may have re-phrased them in a way that was not necessarily meant, evidenced by hesitant replies such as ‘yes, I suppose…’ The tone of responses guides analysis. In addition, I have caught myself jokingly referring to some discussions as 'begging letters', producing disapproval in the interviewee and breaking the cardinal rule of impartiality.
Five interviews have now been conducted and at least another four are planned, two with lecturers and two with members of the documentary group. With feedback from my supervisor and a work colleague, there will be a chance to improve interview technique, although I have been pleased with the overall results of the interviews, which have been fairly relaxed and conversational.
Asking about expectations rather than barriers or obstacles seems to be an easier way of eliciting information. Expectations that were or weren’t realised are an ‘in’ into people’s sense-making processes.
The documentary group can be placed within a general description of the types of interactions and purposes of the other groups in the site. To quote or reference particular posts from these groups will require another, possibly vain, attempt to gain permission for use. With the initial response to the request to use online materials plus the permission from interview subjects to use their posts, I will have a good number of individuals that I will be able to examine and quote in detail.
It is difficult in an interview to strike a balance between not imposing one’s own ideas and maintaining a relaxed, conversational atmosphere. I think that I have been reasonably successful in allowing the interviewee to choose their topics and responses. However, I did find myself adding some leading phrases, usually based on what the interviewee had mentioned; in trying to ‘reflect’ the interviewee’s ideas, I may have re-phrased them in a way that was not necessarily meant, evidenced by hesitant replies such as ‘yes, I suppose…’ The tone of responses guides analysis. In addition, I have caught myself jokingly referring to some discussions as 'begging letters', producing disapproval in the interviewee and breaking the cardinal rule of impartiality.
Five interviews have now been conducted and at least another four are planned, two with lecturers and two with members of the documentary group. With feedback from my supervisor and a work colleague, there will be a chance to improve interview technique, although I have been pleased with the overall results of the interviews, which have been fairly relaxed and conversational.
Asking about expectations rather than barriers or obstacles seems to be an easier way of eliciting information. Expectations that were or weren’t realised are an ‘in’ into people’s sense-making processes.
Monday, October 11, 2010
The feltness of technology
A big reason for the ethnographic/sensemaking approach to my research topic has been observations of the wildly varying degrees of take-up of - and associated comfort with - technology. The aversion to using online tools and publishing online is a real fear and anxiety for some. There are personal, individual and situational factors that produce feelings for technology and its use. And the emotional, affective side of technology use has a great influence on success in using technology in learning.
I've been a web designer and producer, now learning technologist, and hence an interested user of online technologies for around 12 years. Over that time, my relationship with technology has changed and developed. From the first tremulous ftp uploads with fast-beating heart to my many devices and numerous accounts, it has always been an emotional relationship. The change in going from a dial up to broadband access was a watershed, not only in speed but in the pleasure I had in going online. No longer did I have to sit through the sound of my modem connecting, which formed an audible barrier between me and the wide web.
I think that everyone has their own versions of the modem, experiences that colour their approach to online tools, as well as the physicality of touching keyboards and mice; the curves of an iPad, the matte face and round keys of a Kindle.
A book I'm reading at the moment is Technology as Experience by McCarthy and Wright (2004), that promotes thinking and research around the emotional and sensual experience of using technology. In their term, the introduction of a new technology is a 'perturbation', the response to which we can't predict - either our own or others' (McCarthy & Wright, 2004). Action is not based on plans, but is much more immediate and situated (McCarthy & Wright, 2004, referring to L.A. Suchman, 1987).
In pondering my research project, what I want to know comes down to this difference in reaction to the perturbation of new technologies. How one person will happily upload galleries of photos and add videos to a site, answering discussion questions, while another will not. Much of the explanation, I think, is in the individual's history of technology use - which mediates the shock of the new - but even given similar histories, there is still a difference in how people participate online. The concept of sense-making is very much a situated view, where the individual's circumstances and the immediacy of action form practice that is more intuitive than planned. This leaves the problem of gaining an understanding of this unconscious, immediate sense-making through the left artefacts and reflective backward looks of research subjects. If I can get a handle on their perceived obstacles and confusions, plus how they approach them and why they give up, I hope that I can gain some understanding of the whys of individuals' types and level of participation. The feelings people bring to online interactions and towards technologies will be a large part of this explanation
On the particulars of the research project: with a low response from two of my three target groups permitting me to use their posted artefacts, I will have to spread a wider net for artefact and interview subjects. As stated before, I would like to interview both active and less active participants, with a view to comparing their approaches to the site and its tools.
McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
I've been a web designer and producer, now learning technologist, and hence an interested user of online technologies for around 12 years. Over that time, my relationship with technology has changed and developed. From the first tremulous ftp uploads with fast-beating heart to my many devices and numerous accounts, it has always been an emotional relationship. The change in going from a dial up to broadband access was a watershed, not only in speed but in the pleasure I had in going online. No longer did I have to sit through the sound of my modem connecting, which formed an audible barrier between me and the wide web.
I think that everyone has their own versions of the modem, experiences that colour their approach to online tools, as well as the physicality of touching keyboards and mice; the curves of an iPad, the matte face and round keys of a Kindle.
A book I'm reading at the moment is Technology as Experience by McCarthy and Wright (2004), that promotes thinking and research around the emotional and sensual experience of using technology. In their term, the introduction of a new technology is a 'perturbation', the response to which we can't predict - either our own or others' (McCarthy & Wright, 2004). Action is not based on plans, but is much more immediate and situated (McCarthy & Wright, 2004, referring to L.A. Suchman, 1987).
In pondering my research project, what I want to know comes down to this difference in reaction to the perturbation of new technologies. How one person will happily upload galleries of photos and add videos to a site, answering discussion questions, while another will not. Much of the explanation, I think, is in the individual's history of technology use - which mediates the shock of the new - but even given similar histories, there is still a difference in how people participate online. The concept of sense-making is very much a situated view, where the individual's circumstances and the immediacy of action form practice that is more intuitive than planned. This leaves the problem of gaining an understanding of this unconscious, immediate sense-making through the left artefacts and reflective backward looks of research subjects. If I can get a handle on their perceived obstacles and confusions, plus how they approach them and why they give up, I hope that I can gain some understanding of the whys of individuals' types and level of participation. The feelings people bring to online interactions and towards technologies will be a large part of this explanation
On the particulars of the research project: with a low response from two of my three target groups permitting me to use their posted artefacts, I will have to spread a wider net for artefact and interview subjects. As stated before, I would like to interview both active and less active participants, with a view to comparing their approaches to the site and its tools.
McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Ethnography for design
Ethnography seems to be used fairly often in systems design research (Sayago & Blat, 2010; Andersen, 1994; Blomberg, Burrell & Guest, 2008; Button, 2008; Macaulay, Benyon & Crerar, 2000). I see sensemaking, especially Dervin's approach to interviews, as fitting easily into a sub-set of ethnography.
I've been reading some ethnographic articles (e.g. Sayago & Blat, 2010) and appreciating the narrative or even conversational style that they adopt. They acknowledge the subjectivity of the approach, but do not accept that this means it is not a legitimate method (Sayago & Blat, 2010). I liked the following, quoted by a fellow student:
This is where the narrative of ethnography comes into its own. In researching how people select articles in information searches, Brenda Dervin, of Sense-Making Methodology fame, found that the best way to find relevant articles were by using ones that explicitly described the background of researchers and their reasons for conducting the research (I can't find the reference now, unfortunately). Context is invaluable. When information on the researchers is missed in an article, it can make the argument and conclusion more opaque and perhaps less legitimate. Author bias can be part of the appeal rather than a detraction from the legitimacy of the results. I think it is important to include some introduction of my formative experiences and motivations in doing this particular study.
Sayago and Blat (2010) have created a well-structured article on an ethnographic study of older people's use of email. They divide their findings into two sections: 'nature of use' and 'interaction barriers' and then further headings in those sections. The 'nature of use' section has the headings 'social circles', 'frequency of use and content', 'geographical distance and its relationship with other means of contact', 'e-mailing and other daily activities' and 'socialisation, emotion and accomplishment'. Their argument is supported throughout the findings by quoting the words of their subjects together with relevant references to literature. My own results could probably be presented and organized similarly.
References:
Andersen, R. (1994). Representations and requirements: the value of ethnography in system design. Human–Computer Interaction 9, 151–182.
Blomberg, J., Burrell, M., Guest, G. (2008). An ethnographic approach to design. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (Eds.), The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. .
Button, G., (2008). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies 21, 319–332.
Macaulay, C., Benyon, D., Crerar, A. (2000). Ethnography, theory and systems design: from intuition to insight. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 53, 35–60.
Sayago, S. & Blat, J. (2010). Telling the story of older people e-mailing: An ethnographical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60, 105-120.
I've been reading some ethnographic articles (e.g. Sayago & Blat, 2010) and appreciating the narrative or even conversational style that they adopt. They acknowledge the subjectivity of the approach, but do not accept that this means it is not a legitimate method (Sayago & Blat, 2010). I liked the following, quoted by a fellow student:
'The attempt to produce value-neutral social science is increasingly being abandoned as at best unrealizable, and at worst self-deceptive, and is being replaced by social sciences based on explicit ideologies. Mary Hesse (1980)'I wouldn't necessarily agree that we are applying ideologies, but if anyone believes that their research is not affected by their beliefs, theories and biases, then they definitely are having themselves on.
This is where the narrative of ethnography comes into its own. In researching how people select articles in information searches, Brenda Dervin, of Sense-Making Methodology fame, found that the best way to find relevant articles were by using ones that explicitly described the background of researchers and their reasons for conducting the research (I can't find the reference now, unfortunately). Context is invaluable. When information on the researchers is missed in an article, it can make the argument and conclusion more opaque and perhaps less legitimate. Author bias can be part of the appeal rather than a detraction from the legitimacy of the results. I think it is important to include some introduction of my formative experiences and motivations in doing this particular study.
Sayago and Blat (2010) have created a well-structured article on an ethnographic study of older people's use of email. They divide their findings into two sections: 'nature of use' and 'interaction barriers' and then further headings in those sections. The 'nature of use' section has the headings 'social circles', 'frequency of use and content', 'geographical distance and its relationship with other means of contact', 'e-mailing and other daily activities' and 'socialisation, emotion and accomplishment'. Their argument is supported throughout the findings by quoting the words of their subjects together with relevant references to literature. My own results could probably be presented and organized similarly.
References:
Andersen, R. (1994). Representations and requirements: the value of ethnography in system design. Human–Computer Interaction 9, 151–182.
Blomberg, J., Burrell, M., Guest, G. (2008). An ethnographic approach to design. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (Eds.), The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. .
Button, G., (2008). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies 21, 319–332.
Macaulay, C., Benyon, D., Crerar, A. (2000). Ethnography, theory and systems design: from intuition to insight. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 53, 35–60.
Sayago, S. & Blat, J. (2010). Telling the story of older people e-mailing: An ethnographical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60, 105-120.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Lift-off on data collection
Finally sent out permission requests for the uploaded posts section of my research.
Now to add a forum.
As I have had about a third of the people respond and there have been a couple of responses with 'please don't use my material', I am re-thinking my original idea of adding separate forums for each of the groups. I think that one forum is going to work better in practice with the number of likely posts. The ability to see all others' ideas would be useful in creating a more of a conversation around the questions. Also, it means less confusion; respondents might not have been sure whether to post to the main or group forum.
Now to add a forum.
As I have had about a third of the people respond and there have been a couple of responses with 'please don't use my material', I am re-thinking my original idea of adding separate forums for each of the groups. I think that one forum is going to work better in practice with the number of likely posts. The ability to see all others' ideas would be useful in creating a more of a conversation around the questions. Also, it means less confusion; respondents might not have been sure whether to post to the main or group forum.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Second assessment task
For the second assessment task, I would like to refine the description of method and also put data collection and analysis into practice on at least some of the artefacts and forum and interview responses. Getting the right tone and focus will require some work, and feedback on how I'm handling actual data will be invaluable.
I think the assessment task itself will be an overview of more detailed work that I need to get done for the actual research project. The data is confidential, so won't be publishable on this blog. The assessment task will likely also include confidential data, so it won't be shareable except with lecturers, though I will post general reflections on data collection and analysis here.
I think the assessment task itself will be an overview of more detailed work that I need to get done for the actual research project. The data is confidential, so won't be publishable on this blog. The assessment task will likely also include confidential data, so it won't be shareable except with lecturers, though I will post general reflections on data collection and analysis here.
Virtual Ethnography
While implementing Dervin's Sense-Making methodology (her capitals) as a guide to how to devise and use questions, the overall method for inquiring into the use of the social network is that of a virtual ethnography.
This can be a labour-intensive approach and I'm not sure that I am actually implementing it fully. I am a member of the site, but also the administrator. I have been an observer of the site from inception, of course, but have not kept detailed notes throughout its development. As a background to the research, I can give a quite detailed account from memory, notes and site logs of how the site was set up, the information provided and the types of interactions as members established themselves. So there is some longitudinal detail there for the site as a whole.
The artefacts of the target group will also provide longitudinal detail, as the groups have used the site over a period of months. Their posts and other artefacts are dated, so are plot-able over time. (Wall posts can be frustrating though not difficult to follow, as only half a conversation is visible at once: the other person's wall needs to be read to get the full gist.)
From my observations of the site over time, I have formed some judgments of how the site has been used, both positive and negative. However, the use of private messaging is hidden from me, as well as the use of email and phone to contact other members, which would shed further light on the role of the site in connecting its members. In addition, the experience of a student, from early discovery to use (or rejection) of the affordances of the site, will only become apparent from their relation of that experience. It will be interesting to contrast my assumptions with those of the students.
It is uncertain whether the site constitutes a 'community' or 'culture' as is implied by the use of an ethnographic approach, though a virtual ethnography is an adaptation of the traditional ethnography. I think there are common attributes between users' understandings of how the site could or should be used. There certainly is a community, covered by tacit and explicit rules and understandings, within the school. The social network site may not in itself provide an independent community, but might be seen as an extension, where communication and interaction goes back and forth from the physical to the virtual, and identity is shaped or performed in both.
As with other ethnographies, both in person and virtual, the voice of the people in the community is important. I'll be conducting online discussions as well as in-person interviews, using open questions (see my post on the 'Schedule for online forums and interviews'), thereby gaining the ‘authority that comes from exposing the emergent analysis to challenge through interaction’ (Hine, 2000).
I'm just about to start asking for user involvement in online discussions, at the same time as asking target group members to permit me to use their online artefacts for the study. I've been delaying this move from some apprehension of how it is going to be received. I am not at all sure of students' attitudes to the site or if they will be willing to cooperate, though have no real reason to expect otherwise. The questions I've devised are very open. I wonder if the respondents will be confused as to what I'm asking. It is time to jump in.
Reference
Hine, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
This can be a labour-intensive approach and I'm not sure that I am actually implementing it fully. I am a member of the site, but also the administrator. I have been an observer of the site from inception, of course, but have not kept detailed notes throughout its development. As a background to the research, I can give a quite detailed account from memory, notes and site logs of how the site was set up, the information provided and the types of interactions as members established themselves. So there is some longitudinal detail there for the site as a whole.
The artefacts of the target group will also provide longitudinal detail, as the groups have used the site over a period of months. Their posts and other artefacts are dated, so are plot-able over time. (Wall posts can be frustrating though not difficult to follow, as only half a conversation is visible at once: the other person's wall needs to be read to get the full gist.)
From my observations of the site over time, I have formed some judgments of how the site has been used, both positive and negative. However, the use of private messaging is hidden from me, as well as the use of email and phone to contact other members, which would shed further light on the role of the site in connecting its members. In addition, the experience of a student, from early discovery to use (or rejection) of the affordances of the site, will only become apparent from their relation of that experience. It will be interesting to contrast my assumptions with those of the students.
It is uncertain whether the site constitutes a 'community' or 'culture' as is implied by the use of an ethnographic approach, though a virtual ethnography is an adaptation of the traditional ethnography. I think there are common attributes between users' understandings of how the site could or should be used. There certainly is a community, covered by tacit and explicit rules and understandings, within the school. The social network site may not in itself provide an independent community, but might be seen as an extension, where communication and interaction goes back and forth from the physical to the virtual, and identity is shaped or performed in both.
As with other ethnographies, both in person and virtual, the voice of the people in the community is important. I'll be conducting online discussions as well as in-person interviews, using open questions (see my post on the 'Schedule for online forums and interviews'), thereby gaining the ‘authority that comes from exposing the emergent analysis to challenge through interaction’ (Hine, 2000).
I'm just about to start asking for user involvement in online discussions, at the same time as asking target group members to permit me to use their online artefacts for the study. I've been delaying this move from some apprehension of how it is going to be received. I am not at all sure of students' attitudes to the site or if they will be willing to cooperate, though have no real reason to expect otherwise. The questions I've devised are very open. I wonder if the respondents will be confused as to what I'm asking. It is time to jump in.
Reference
Hine, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
Schedule for online forums and interviews
I've made a revision of my initial sample questions. The interviews will be semi-structured, exploratory and based on the Sense-Making methodology. The general idea is to be open to the respondent's view of what is important: allowing them to guide the topics.
The questions start with easier general questions about current concepts of the site, referred to here as 'AC'. As current concepts are easier to recall and explain, any look at historical usage is better left until after current recollections.
Forums
Initial questions for general forum:
Initial questions for group forums will use the same questions as for the general forum, plus:
Interviews
In the interviews, I'll place AC in view and to allow exploration to prompt recollection - show personal profile, friends’ pages, group page and discussions.
Prompts as below would not be used unless the subject is completely at a loss: some prompts may need revision as they may be too leading. They are more as a guide to myself as to the areas that I'm interested in.
Current concepts and outcomes:
The questions start with easier general questions about current concepts of the site, referred to here as 'AC'. As current concepts are easier to recall and explain, any look at historical usage is better left until after current recollections.
Forums
Initial questions for general forum:
- Tell me about experiences in using AC.
- How does AC connect to your study and general life?
- How did you work out how to use AC? Were there things that confused you? How did you resolve any confusion?
- Where were your expectations not met? Did you find some things that you weren’t able to do? Did you find a way around this? How?
- Where and how were your expectations met?
Initial questions for group forums will use the same questions as for the general forum, plus:
- a. What does the group do, what are its aims? (for you - how does it fit into your experience?)? What do you do for the group?
b. What role does AC play in the group? - For one group that has a Moodle area provided for the course as well as access to AC: why do you choose to use AC rather than the Moodle site for your group discussions?
Interviews
In the interviews, I'll place AC in view and to allow exploration to prompt recollection - show personal profile, friends’ pages, group page and discussions.
Prompts as below would not be used unless the subject is completely at a loss: some prompts may need revision as they may be too leading. They are more as a guide to myself as to the areas that I'm interested in.
Current concepts and outcomes:
- How would you describe AC to someone who is new to it? (Prompt: what does AC remind you of - does it feel or work like other sites or communities you have experienced? What is different?)
- How does AC connect to your study and general life?
- How would you describe who you are and what you do on AC? (Prompts: that is, what role do you see yourself in? collaborator, consumer, producer, promoter of self, source of knowledge?)
- Based on the answers to questions 1-3, ask more specifically about activities on the site.
- How does using AFTRS Central make you feel? (prompts might include: ownership.. part of a community? isolated? supported? are you an owner? a guest? does it belong to the 'school' but not you?)
- What impact or consequences to your experience at school have come from using AC? (Prompt: What do you think about learning and communications?)
- Do you feel you have a good understanding of the site for your uses? (Are you comfortable using the site?) If you get confused about how to use the site, how do you resolve this? What strategies have you used to work out how to use the site?
- Tell me about some experiences that have involved AC.
- When you started using AC, what did you think it would be useful for? What did you want to achieve?
- What was unclear when you first joined?
- What was an obstacle to you doing what you wanted?
- What helped you in doing what you wanted? How do you want to be helped?
- How did you work out what to do?
- Describe how you generally used online tools before coming to AFTRS. (Prompt: Are you a blogger, have you used or contributed content to eg YouTube or Wikipedia, Twitter or Facebook?)
- What do you think is important to learning in general and to your learning in particular? (Prompt: how important are other students to your learning?)
- Very few people rate or comment on videos and photos on AC - why do you think that is?
- Questions... Have you considered sharing, uploading or commenting and thought better of it? What were your thought processes when this happened?
- Compare the experience and activity on AC vs Hub (Moodle). How do you use them differently?
- You've posted notices on the main forum and several groups' pages. What prompted this?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Social networks and identity
Articles on using social software in education posit the question of how to 'plan' or design for user-regulated learning: how to scaffold learners in constructive tasks that they themselves create and pursue, that is, what is Pedagogy 2.0 (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). In the site under examination, pedagogical design and scaffolding is not particularly present, but hopefully the research findings will be relevant to considering how students choose to use social networking and create identity in education-based social network sites. Situated cognition and activity theory crop up in discussions of social software (cf. Young, 2009) - I don't think I need to go into this in depth, as I am taking a more micro view.
Part of my research is observation of a social network site and the artefacts, ' "microcontent", i.e., digital content in small fragments' (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007) created by the members. Without focus, this would be a huge task, considering the large number of members and the many interactions, discussions and uploads. This will be partly managed by selecting three collaborative groups on which to conduct detailed analysis. In the area of sensemaking and identity, profile personalisation - type of profile picture, type of image and the types of other shared details - will be one area of analysis. Another focus will be on the mostly implied norms and etiquette of AC (initials of the social network site). ‘Power is now diffused through social relationships… individuals are now encouraged to regulate themselves and to ensure that their own behavior falls within acceptable norms’ (Buckingham, 2008). I'm interested in how people have constructed and assumed the norms of interaction.
Further questions are: are people creating new connections or expanding existing ones; what audiences are they imagining and what impressions do they hope to achieve? Answers can be implied from the way people have communicated and the artefacts they have chosen to share. Interviews will further explore these questions.
In line with the Sense-Making methodology, topics and questions for the forum and interviews will be very open, leaving the respondent with control over the agenda. Initially I thought to ask the questions, 'Do you identify with other members of the site? Some more than others? What is it that influences you in identifying with someone?' However, on reading Hughes (2010) and revisiting Sense-Making, this approach is too leading. In line with Hughes, the questions will be more general, asking instead about ‘positive and negative experiences of working [or communicating] collaboratively online' (Hughes, 2010).
This leaves the researcher with the job of placing open-ended answers within the context of sensemaking and identity. Do connections illustrate social, operational or knowledge congruity, that is, is the communication based on social connections, how to use tools or on an 'identification with the ideas, concepts and knowledges that are under construction' (Hughes, 2010)? Although much of the communication within AC is social, such as personal greetings, the longest and most involved discussion was one about choosing cameras, involving a number of members who had not had much, if any, previous contact. This seems to confirm Hughes' assertion that 'knowledge congruity' is key to constructive communication - and is the most likely ingredient for participation (Hughes, 2010). According to Hughes (2010) cooperation results from being ‘willing to share knowledge’ and make it available for people to critique, plus ‘others must negotiate identity congruence with this knowledge by interacting with it in a constructive way’ (Hughes, 2010).
The research will look at several groups that have been formed in AC. As 'identity also implies a relationship with a broader collective or social group of some kind' (Hughes, 2010), individual identity is formed in the context of the full site community as well as that of a specific group. Greenhow and Robelia (2009) 'view identity formation as dynamic, self-reflective, and performative, rather than something that just is, or that we develop into and sustain.’ It is also ‘self-discovery and self-presentation’ (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009). The dynamic development of identity resonates with the concept of sensemaking as an ongoing process.
Who are the audience - under whose (imagined) gaze do people perform their identities? Are there different ‘registers’ of language (Buckingham, 2008) in different contexts? That is, do people modify their mode of communication depending on their imagined audience?
A study of the use of Ning, the social network software-as-a-service used for AC, as a learning network, identified ‘four key themes…: communication, collaboration, reflection and comprehension, and convenience and comfort’ (Brady, Holcomb & Smith, 2010). This study found that the time required to spend on Ning was seen as an obstacle by its users. It is likely that the issue of frequency of use and time constraints will be noted by respondents from AC, especially as their courses are extremely intensive full-time courses or part-time courses with students juggling work and family commitments.
‘For social interaction, in particular knowledge sharing, to occur we have identified three conditions: the boundary condition, the heterogeneity condition and the accountability condition’ (Berlanga et.al, 2009). I don't know whether this is particularly relevant to note, though the three conditions seem to be met by AC. Whether it has clearly defined goals (boundary) could be questioned but the behaviour of its members seems to run on an understood set of rules. Its members are varied, running from the very technically and socially savvy to the lurkers, from trendsetters to followers. All are accountable as they use their own names and have ongoing contact with other members. Perhaps it will be that the lack of clear goals may be something that appears as a barrier or 'gap' to sensemaking and hence participation.
On the subject of method, Young (2009) suggests the use of the 'think-aloud' method in asking participants to 'deconstruct their online profile'. This is something to consider in interviews, where the site can be made available to help interviewees in their recollection and to make their thinking or sensemaking processes more visible.
In talking of the affordances of social software, the definition offered by McLoughlin and Lee (2007) is useful: 'an affordance is a “can do” statement that does not have to be predefined by a particular functionality, and refers to any application that enables a user to undertake tasks in their environment, whether known or unknown to him/her. For example, blogging entails typing and editing posts, which are not affordances, but which enable the affordances of idea sharing and interaction.' They list some of the affordances of social software tools as 'connectivity and social rapport...collaborative information discovery and sharing...content creation... knowledge and information aggregation and content modification.
My planned reading is as follows:
References:
Berlanga, A., Bitter-Rijpkema, Brouns, F., Sloep, P. & Fetter, S. (2009) Personal Profiles: Enhancing Social Interaction in Learning Networks. International Journal of Web Based Communities. Draft version accessed August 20, 2010 at http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/1742/1/IJWBC-Berlangaetal-draftv.1-DSpace.pdf.
Brady, K., Holcomb, L. & Smith, B. (2010) The Use of Alternative Social Networking Sites in Higher Educational Settings: A Case Study of the E-Learning Benefits of Ning in Education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 9(2), 151-170.
Buckingham, D. (2008) Introducing Identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.) Youth, Identity and Digital Media. The John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 1-24
Greenhow, C. & Robelia, B. (2009) Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology. 34(2), 119-140.
Hughes, G. (2010) Identity and belonging in social learning groups: the importance of distinguishing social, operational and knowledge-related congruence. British Educational Research Journal. 36(1) 47-63
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2007) Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.
Young, K. (2009) Online Social Networking: An Australian Perspective. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society. 7(1), 39-57.
Part of my research is observation of a social network site and the artefacts, ' "microcontent", i.e., digital content in small fragments' (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007) created by the members. Without focus, this would be a huge task, considering the large number of members and the many interactions, discussions and uploads. This will be partly managed by selecting three collaborative groups on which to conduct detailed analysis. In the area of sensemaking and identity, profile personalisation - type of profile picture, type of image and the types of other shared details - will be one area of analysis. Another focus will be on the mostly implied norms and etiquette of AC (initials of the social network site). ‘Power is now diffused through social relationships… individuals are now encouraged to regulate themselves and to ensure that their own behavior falls within acceptable norms’ (Buckingham, 2008). I'm interested in how people have constructed and assumed the norms of interaction.
Further questions are: are people creating new connections or expanding existing ones; what audiences are they imagining and what impressions do they hope to achieve? Answers can be implied from the way people have communicated and the artefacts they have chosen to share. Interviews will further explore these questions.
In line with the Sense-Making methodology, topics and questions for the forum and interviews will be very open, leaving the respondent with control over the agenda. Initially I thought to ask the questions, 'Do you identify with other members of the site? Some more than others? What is it that influences you in identifying with someone?' However, on reading Hughes (2010) and revisiting Sense-Making, this approach is too leading. In line with Hughes, the questions will be more general, asking instead about ‘positive and negative experiences of working [or communicating] collaboratively online' (Hughes, 2010).
This leaves the researcher with the job of placing open-ended answers within the context of sensemaking and identity. Do connections illustrate social, operational or knowledge congruity, that is, is the communication based on social connections, how to use tools or on an 'identification with the ideas, concepts and knowledges that are under construction' (Hughes, 2010)? Although much of the communication within AC is social, such as personal greetings, the longest and most involved discussion was one about choosing cameras, involving a number of members who had not had much, if any, previous contact. This seems to confirm Hughes' assertion that 'knowledge congruity' is key to constructive communication - and is the most likely ingredient for participation (Hughes, 2010). According to Hughes (2010) cooperation results from being ‘willing to share knowledge’ and make it available for people to critique, plus ‘others must negotiate identity congruence with this knowledge by interacting with it in a constructive way’ (Hughes, 2010).
The research will look at several groups that have been formed in AC. As 'identity also implies a relationship with a broader collective or social group of some kind' (Hughes, 2010), individual identity is formed in the context of the full site community as well as that of a specific group. Greenhow and Robelia (2009) 'view identity formation as dynamic, self-reflective, and performative, rather than something that just is, or that we develop into and sustain.’ It is also ‘self-discovery and self-presentation’ (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009). The dynamic development of identity resonates with the concept of sensemaking as an ongoing process.
Who are the audience - under whose (imagined) gaze do people perform their identities? Are there different ‘registers’ of language (Buckingham, 2008) in different contexts? That is, do people modify their mode of communication depending on their imagined audience?
A study of the use of Ning, the social network software-as-a-service used for AC, as a learning network, identified ‘four key themes…: communication, collaboration, reflection and comprehension, and convenience and comfort’ (Brady, Holcomb & Smith, 2010). This study found that the time required to spend on Ning was seen as an obstacle by its users. It is likely that the issue of frequency of use and time constraints will be noted by respondents from AC, especially as their courses are extremely intensive full-time courses or part-time courses with students juggling work and family commitments.
‘For social interaction, in particular knowledge sharing, to occur we have identified three conditions: the boundary condition, the heterogeneity condition and the accountability condition’ (Berlanga et.al, 2009). I don't know whether this is particularly relevant to note, though the three conditions seem to be met by AC. Whether it has clearly defined goals (boundary) could be questioned but the behaviour of its members seems to run on an understood set of rules. Its members are varied, running from the very technically and socially savvy to the lurkers, from trendsetters to followers. All are accountable as they use their own names and have ongoing contact with other members. Perhaps it will be that the lack of clear goals may be something that appears as a barrier or 'gap' to sensemaking and hence participation.
On the subject of method, Young (2009) suggests the use of the 'think-aloud' method in asking participants to 'deconstruct their online profile'. This is something to consider in interviews, where the site can be made available to help interviewees in their recollection and to make their thinking or sensemaking processes more visible.
In talking of the affordances of social software, the definition offered by McLoughlin and Lee (2007) is useful: 'an affordance is a “can do” statement that does not have to be predefined by a particular functionality, and refers to any application that enables a user to undertake tasks in their environment, whether known or unknown to him/her. For example, blogging entails typing and editing posts, which are not affordances, but which enable the affordances of idea sharing and interaction.' They list some of the affordances of social software tools as 'connectivity and social rapport...collaborative information discovery and sharing...content creation... knowledge and information aggregation and content modification.
My planned reading is as follows:
- Continue with Dervin's reader on Sense-Making. It has to go back from inter-library loan within a week.
- Dron, J. (2007). Designing the Undesignable: Social Software and Control. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (3), 60-71. (Mentioned in one of my readings - seemed to have some interesting things to say.)
- Dwyer, C. Digital Relationships in the 'MySpace' Generation: Results From a Qualitative Study
- I'm currently reading some ethnographic papers on education and identity, which in addition to introducing me to ethnographic style are also offering some interesting ideas. They are:
Dixon, C., Yeager, B., Castanheira, M. & Green, J. (2007) (Re)Formulating identities in the face of fluid modernity: An interactional ethnographic approach. International Journal of Educational Research. 46, 172-189
Kirschner, P., Andriessen, J., Erkens, G. & Sins, P. (2010) Shared Epistemic Agency: An Empirical Study of an Emergent Construct. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 143-186
Barton, A. & Tan, E. (2010) We Be Burnin'! Agency, Identity, and Science Learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 143-186 - Mazur, J. (2004) Conversation Analysis for Educational Technologists: Theoretical and Methodological issues for Researching the Structures, Processes, and Meaning of On-Line Talk. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2 ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1073-1098.
- I found a set of articles in Technology, Pedagogy and Education on self-regulated learning, including one entitled 'Community and social network sites as Technology Enhanced Learning Environments' but I'm not sure that I want to go too far down this road.
- Whose space is MySpace? A content analysis of MySpace profiles (2008) - http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2202/2024
- I also need to get back to a journal-by-journal trawl for relevant articles on sensemaking, identity and social networks.
References:
Berlanga, A., Bitter-Rijpkema, Brouns, F., Sloep, P. & Fetter, S. (2009) Personal Profiles: Enhancing Social Interaction in Learning Networks. International Journal of Web Based Communities. Draft version accessed August 20, 2010 at http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/1742/1/IJWBC-Berlangaetal-draftv.1-DSpace.pdf.
Brady, K., Holcomb, L. & Smith, B. (2010) The Use of Alternative Social Networking Sites in Higher Educational Settings: A Case Study of the E-Learning Benefits of Ning in Education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 9(2), 151-170.
Buckingham, D. (2008) Introducing Identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.) Youth, Identity and Digital Media. The John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 1-24
Greenhow, C. & Robelia, B. (2009) Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology. 34(2), 119-140.
Hughes, G. (2010) Identity and belonging in social learning groups: the importance of distinguishing social, operational and knowledge-related congruence. British Educational Research Journal. 36(1) 47-63
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2007) Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.
Young, K. (2009) Online Social Networking: An Australian Perspective. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society. 7(1), 39-57.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Sensemaking
The two authors that I've used in looking at sensemaking are Weick, who looks at how people and organisations adapt systems and work practices, and Dervin, who uses sensemaking as a methodology for guiding an open exploration of people's needs.
Weick
I've mostly looked at the ideas in Weick's book, Sensemaking in Organizations (Weick, 1995) and a number of articles that reference it. He outlines seven properties of sensemaking:
1. 'Grounded in Identity construction'; 2. retrospective; 3. environments are enacted, that is, 'action is crucial for sensemaking'; 4. social; 5. ongoing; 6. uses 'extracted cues', in that people use 'simple, familiar structures' to focus on clues and gain the bigger picture; 7. 'driven by plausability rather than reason', in that people are satisfied with a result that may not be accurate but fits their purposes.
These properties are well matched with Brenda Dervin's methodology, which is also concerned with the mutability and situatedness of a sensemaking that is bound to action.
Dervin
Brenda Dervin approaches Sense-Making (her capitalisation) as a methodology, placing itself between theory and practice in the area of communication. It aims to allow the respondent more freedom in guiding discussion, encouraging narrative, self-reflection, verbs rather than nouns, and focusing on 'gaps' in knowledge and the ways in which people negotiate those gaps.
I had some trouble understanding what she meant by using verbs rather than nouns in the way research should be done. An example she gives about a library illustrated both this and her approach to open questioning. Extrapolating from her example, a typical conversation at a library info desk might be 'Do you have books on directors?', 'Yes, do you know what type of directors? Do you want film directors or television directors? Comedy or drama?' Sense making 'makes minimal use of nouns' and could ask instead "'What happened that brought you here? What questions are you trying to answer? What help would you like? If I was able to help, what would you do with it?'" (Dervin, 1998). Research librarians have said that this approach 'makes their interchanges with users both more efficient and more effective' (Dervin, 1998). She uses this approach in interviews to allow the responder more control over what they think is important or relevant.
I've found a few articles around Dervin's approach and a reader (Dervin & Foreman-Wernet, 2003) of her methodology. I've started on the reader: there is a fair amount of something close to ideology in the underpinning theory, but I think it is OK to take what I can from the methodology without being too caught up in the issue of the division of society into the information-poor and information-rich.
A diagram has been very helpful in getting a quick overview of the concepts she includes in Sense-Making, the 'gap' diagram available in Naumer, Fisher & Dervin (2008)
Nersessian
I found this tantalising as yet unpublished book:
Science as Psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice (Lisa Osbeck, Nancy J. Nersessian, Kareen Malone, Wendy Newstetter, co-authors ; Cambridge University Press, in press, 2010. It seems Prof. Nersessian also uses ethnography in her research, so it likely has some parallels with my small study. I've found a number of articles of hers that touch on her methods. In any case, the chapter headings from the book have me thinking about classification of online actions and identities: 3. The problem-solving person; 4. The feeling person; 5. The positioning person; 6. The person negotiating cultural identities; 7. The learning person. Maybe these archetypes are something to consider when conceptualising identity.
Other articles that have applied sensemaking:
Bansler, J. & Havn, E. (2005) Sensemaking in Technology-Use Mediation: Adapting Groupware Technology in Organizations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15, 55–91
- this article looks at how 'technologies are equivocal' and that mediators are important in how the technologies become understood, adapted and used.
Freedman, J. & Henderson, J. (2008) Digital Usage Behavior: A Sense Making Perspective. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
- in response to an environment, people will act where they think they have control
Kohler, V., Mirijamdotter, A., Soderhamn, O. (December, 2005) People, Technology and Work Practices: understanding the processes of sensemaking when using IT in a nursing context. Proceedings of 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems.
- 'learning is mediated through the IT', 'the specific scope of action perceived by each individual is constituted by a constant interplay between IT, its usage and the context in which the use takes place.'
- mentions Checkland and Holwell's model for Processes for Organizational Meaning 'we see ample benefits with using it as a sense making model for studying the processes in which individuals and groups create meaning while using an already existing IT artifact' - is this something that would be useful for me?? It uses something close to a soft systems diagram to map out processes and interactions.
Gephart, R. (2004) Sensemaking and New Media at Work. American Behavioral Scientist. 48, 479-495.
- 'Sensible computer-mediated communication requires users to actively find evidence that they share meanings with others in the communication, including the computer'
References:
Dervin, B., Foreman-Wernet, L. & Lauterbach, E. (Ed.s) Sense-Making Methodology Reader: Selected Writings of Brenda Dervin. Cresskill, USA: Hampton Press.
Dervin, B. (1998) Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(2).
Naumer, C., Fisher, K. & Dervin, B. (2008, April) Sense-Making: A Methodological Perspective. Sensemaking Workshop, CHI'08. Florence, Italy. Accessed May 1, 2010 from http://dmrussell.googlepages.com/Naumer-final.pdf
Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Weick
I've mostly looked at the ideas in Weick's book, Sensemaking in Organizations (Weick, 1995) and a number of articles that reference it. He outlines seven properties of sensemaking:
1. 'Grounded in Identity construction'; 2. retrospective; 3. environments are enacted, that is, 'action is crucial for sensemaking'; 4. social; 5. ongoing; 6. uses 'extracted cues', in that people use 'simple, familiar structures' to focus on clues and gain the bigger picture; 7. 'driven by plausability rather than reason', in that people are satisfied with a result that may not be accurate but fits their purposes.
These properties are well matched with Brenda Dervin's methodology, which is also concerned with the mutability and situatedness of a sensemaking that is bound to action.
Dervin
Brenda Dervin approaches Sense-Making (her capitalisation) as a methodology, placing itself between theory and practice in the area of communication. It aims to allow the respondent more freedom in guiding discussion, encouraging narrative, self-reflection, verbs rather than nouns, and focusing on 'gaps' in knowledge and the ways in which people negotiate those gaps.
I had some trouble understanding what she meant by using verbs rather than nouns in the way research should be done. An example she gives about a library illustrated both this and her approach to open questioning. Extrapolating from her example, a typical conversation at a library info desk might be 'Do you have books on directors?', 'Yes, do you know what type of directors? Do you want film directors or television directors? Comedy or drama?' Sense making 'makes minimal use of nouns' and could ask instead "'What happened that brought you here? What questions are you trying to answer? What help would you like? If I was able to help, what would you do with it?'" (Dervin, 1998). Research librarians have said that this approach 'makes their interchanges with users both more efficient and more effective' (Dervin, 1998). She uses this approach in interviews to allow the responder more control over what they think is important or relevant.
I've found a few articles around Dervin's approach and a reader (Dervin & Foreman-Wernet, 2003) of her methodology. I've started on the reader: there is a fair amount of something close to ideology in the underpinning theory, but I think it is OK to take what I can from the methodology without being too caught up in the issue of the division of society into the information-poor and information-rich.
A diagram has been very helpful in getting a quick overview of the concepts she includes in Sense-Making, the 'gap' diagram available in Naumer, Fisher & Dervin (2008)
Nersessian
I found this tantalising as yet unpublished book:
Science as Psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice (Lisa Osbeck, Nancy J. Nersessian, Kareen Malone, Wendy Newstetter, co-authors ; Cambridge University Press, in press, 2010. It seems Prof. Nersessian also uses ethnography in her research, so it likely has some parallels with my small study. I've found a number of articles of hers that touch on her methods. In any case, the chapter headings from the book have me thinking about classification of online actions and identities: 3. The problem-solving person; 4. The feeling person; 5. The positioning person; 6. The person negotiating cultural identities; 7. The learning person. Maybe these archetypes are something to consider when conceptualising identity.
Other articles that have applied sensemaking:
Bansler, J. & Havn, E. (2005) Sensemaking in Technology-Use Mediation: Adapting Groupware Technology in Organizations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15, 55–91
- this article looks at how 'technologies are equivocal' and that mediators are important in how the technologies become understood, adapted and used.
Freedman, J. & Henderson, J. (2008) Digital Usage Behavior: A Sense Making Perspective. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
- in response to an environment, people will act where they think they have control
Kohler, V., Mirijamdotter, A., Soderhamn, O. (December, 2005) People, Technology and Work Practices: understanding the processes of sensemaking when using IT in a nursing context. Proceedings of 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems.
- 'learning is mediated through the IT', 'the specific scope of action perceived by each individual is constituted by a constant interplay between IT, its usage and the context in which the use takes place.'
- mentions Checkland and Holwell's model for Processes for Organizational Meaning 'we see ample benefits with using it as a sense making model for studying the processes in which individuals and groups create meaning while using an already existing IT artifact' - is this something that would be useful for me?? It uses something close to a soft systems diagram to map out processes and interactions.
Gephart, R. (2004) Sensemaking and New Media at Work. American Behavioral Scientist. 48, 479-495.
- 'Sensible computer-mediated communication requires users to actively find evidence that they share meanings with others in the communication, including the computer'
References:
Dervin, B., Foreman-Wernet, L. & Lauterbach, E. (Ed.s) Sense-Making Methodology Reader: Selected Writings of Brenda Dervin. Cresskill, USA: Hampton Press.
Dervin, B. (1998) Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(2).
Naumer, C., Fisher, K. & Dervin, B. (2008, April) Sense-Making: A Methodological Perspective. Sensemaking Workshop, CHI'08. Florence, Italy. Accessed May 1, 2010 from http://dmrussell.googlepages.com/Naumer-final.pdf
Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Method for Research Project
On the issue of method, I've liked the approach Nersessian (2002) has taken in her study of a science laboratory, using an ethnographic approach that combines a history of artefacts and interviews with the students and researchers using a science lab to provide a rich cultural, social and cognitive understanding of how people work and conceive ideas. My basic approach is to look at the artefacts in the social networking site - videos, photos, audio, comments, discussions and wall posts - and further enrich that understanding by talking with members of the site through discussion forums and interviews.
Taking an ethnographic approach to the research means that I will have to pay attention to patterns and possible coding and classification of what I observe, or else run the risk of incoherence. I do need to read some ethnographic reports to get more familiar with their style and methods.
From what I have read of Dervin's methodology, I will have to be careful not to be leading in my questions. The balance is to guide respondents into the general areas I'm interested in without interfering with their ideas of what is important. Reading over my initial questions, they will need some modification to do this. I was wondering which questions to include in the online forums and which to perhaps reserve for the interviews, as some subjects will be involved in both. I think the opportunity to 'circle' the same concepts in a couple of different ways (Dervin, 1998) is useful.
References:
Dervin, B. (1998) Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(2).
Nersessian, N. J., W. C. Newstetter, E. Kurz-Milcke, and J. Davies (2002). A mixed-method approach to studying distributed cognition in evolving environments. In Proceeedings of the International Conference on Learning Sciences, pp. 307 - 314. Accessed August 7, 2010 from http://clic.gatech.edu/papers/mixed-media-approach.pdf
Taking an ethnographic approach to the research means that I will have to pay attention to patterns and possible coding and classification of what I observe, or else run the risk of incoherence. I do need to read some ethnographic reports to get more familiar with their style and methods.
From what I have read of Dervin's methodology, I will have to be careful not to be leading in my questions. The balance is to guide respondents into the general areas I'm interested in without interfering with their ideas of what is important. Reading over my initial questions, they will need some modification to do this. I was wondering which questions to include in the online forums and which to perhaps reserve for the interviews, as some subjects will be involved in both. I think the opportunity to 'circle' the same concepts in a couple of different ways (Dervin, 1998) is useful.
References:
Dervin, B. (1998) Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(2).
Nersessian, N. J., W. C. Newstetter, E. Kurz-Milcke, and J. Davies (2002). A mixed-method approach to studying distributed cognition in evolving environments. In Proceeedings of the International Conference on Learning Sciences, pp. 307 - 314. Accessed August 7, 2010 from http://clic.gatech.edu/papers/mixed-media-approach.pdf
By the bye - sensemaking in practice
By the bye, sensemaking is what I am attempting to do at work, where we are working on what the next steps should be in enhancing our online learning environment. I like the idea that, really, any strategic plan will do as long as it gets people moving and oriented; it is up to them then to keep mindful of the cues that result from their actions and continually update their actions and purpose accordingly - it is actions rather than plans that show them where they are and where they want to be and determine success. Sensemaking emphasis on bold action that shapes the environment, rather than getting bogged down in negative deliberation, is attractive when the situation is complex - a simplified view is the way to get action. If a plan sounds plausible and reasonable, it is good enough if it generates the action that actually produces the outcome, however different that may be from the initial idea.
As part of this subject, I'd like to look further into how designers or learning technologists work with teachers and institutions to conceive of and design learning environments.
As part of this subject, I'd like to look further into how designers or learning technologists work with teachers and institutions to conceive of and design learning environments.
Knowledge creation
At Lina's suggestion, rather than looking at communities of practice I am concentrating more on the general idea of knowledge creation, which I think fits a lot better into the micro level analysis I'll be doing. For this, I've been reading Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005), who in turn use Bereiter, Engestrom (use of socially constructed artefacts) and Nonaka and Takeuchi's several approaches to knowledge creation. I hope to find some concepts on which to hang my analysis and suggest questions and topics to cover with research subjects and artefacts.
Artefacts can be concepts, processes, practices, products (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). Tacit vs explicit knowledge and the interaction between them (eg tacit-tacit, tacit-explicit, explicit-explicit transfer) within a social learning setting.
Paavola & Hakkarainen's (2005) components of knowledge building: Question generation, theory formation = 'social practices... that guide participants to jointly articulate and advance preliminary problems and theories'; 'object-orientedness'; students see themselves as 'a prospective builder or creator of knowledge rather than just a 'student'
Vygotsky idea of learning as mediated (1978 in Paavola and Hakkarainen, 2005)
Identity and knowledge creation: 'A critical condition for success appears to be that the voices (Bakhtin 1981) of participants of an inquiry community become socially recognized and respected. Once may say that participants of progressive inquiry are not only working for knowledge advancement, but "authoring" their selves as well (cf., Holland et al. 1998, p. 169).' (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005)
From this, a question for respondents might be: do you feel you have an active and respected role amongst other students through your online contributions? Are there students who you see as useful to the general advancement of learning and knowledge?
It would be useful to locate some empirical studies that apply the ideas of knowledge creation to the analysis of interaction and artefact.
I'm not sure whether the activity I'll be analyzing will be terribly rich in knowledge creation examples. I'm wondering if it will end up that I am drawing a fairly long bow; the basic social networking character of the target site is in contrast to something like Scardamalia and Bereiter's (2006) 'knowledge forum' that is purposely scaffolded to support knowledge creation. It might be interesting is if there is at least some evidence of knowledge creation evident without the presence of scaffolding - a way to see knowledge creation 'in the wild'.
Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005) The Knowledge Creation Metaphor - An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science & Education 14, 535-557
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006) Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology. In Sawyer, R.K. (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of The Learning Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 97-115
Artefacts can be concepts, processes, practices, products (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). Tacit vs explicit knowledge and the interaction between them (eg tacit-tacit, tacit-explicit, explicit-explicit transfer) within a social learning setting.
Paavola & Hakkarainen's (2005) components of knowledge building: Question generation, theory formation = 'social practices... that guide participants to jointly articulate and advance preliminary problems and theories'; 'object-orientedness'; students see themselves as 'a prospective builder or creator of knowledge rather than just a 'student'
Vygotsky idea of learning as mediated (1978 in Paavola and Hakkarainen, 2005)
Identity and knowledge creation: 'A critical condition for success appears to be that the voices (Bakhtin 1981) of participants of an inquiry community become socially recognized and respected. Once may say that participants of progressive inquiry are not only working for knowledge advancement, but "authoring" their selves as well (cf., Holland et al. 1998, p. 169).' (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005)
From this, a question for respondents might be: do you feel you have an active and respected role amongst other students through your online contributions? Are there students who you see as useful to the general advancement of learning and knowledge?
It would be useful to locate some empirical studies that apply the ideas of knowledge creation to the analysis of interaction and artefact.
I'm not sure whether the activity I'll be analyzing will be terribly rich in knowledge creation examples. I'm wondering if it will end up that I am drawing a fairly long bow; the basic social networking character of the target site is in contrast to something like Scardamalia and Bereiter's (2006) 'knowledge forum' that is purposely scaffolded to support knowledge creation. It might be interesting is if there is at least some evidence of knowledge creation evident without the presence of scaffolding - a way to see knowledge creation 'in the wild'.
Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005) The Knowledge Creation Metaphor - An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science & Education 14, 535-557
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006) Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology. In Sawyer, R.K. (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of The Learning Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 97-115
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Intro to Research Project
I'm interested in how different people interact online - how they make sense of a set of tools and their relationship with them and with other people. I'm interested in why and how they act - or don't. How they conceive a space, how they see themselves as actors and how they perceive others as they interact with them. How a group can achieve a shared understanding of an online space.
Based on this, I'm concentrating on using 'sensemaking' as the central idea for my research project. The project is situated in a social networking site for AFTRS, where I work as a learning technologist. I'm the administrator of the site. The project has passed ethics approval and I am now refining concepts and working on appropriate questions and selecting subjects.
I'll attach my research proposal, though it is written with my previous subject's, Designing a Research Project, aims in mind. It is not written wholly from the perspective of an ethnography, which is the basic approach I'll be using, instead taking a rather more positivist tone than it probably should. However, it generally lays out my project and approach. On talking with Lina, I'm not focusing on social presence or community of practice.
Sensemaking, identity and knowledge creation are what I'm concentrating on.
Research Proposal (if you're interested!)
Based on this, I'm concentrating on using 'sensemaking' as the central idea for my research project. The project is situated in a social networking site for AFTRS, where I work as a learning technologist. I'm the administrator of the site. The project has passed ethics approval and I am now refining concepts and working on appropriate questions and selecting subjects.
I'll attach my research proposal, though it is written with my previous subject's, Designing a Research Project, aims in mind. It is not written wholly from the perspective of an ethnography, which is the basic approach I'll be using, instead taking a rather more positivist tone than it probably should. However, it generally lays out my project and approach. On talking with Lina, I'm not focusing on social presence or community of practice.
Sensemaking, identity and knowledge creation are what I'm concentrating on.
Research Proposal (if you're interested!)
Thursday, August 5, 2010
What I'm doing with this blog
This blog is partly to satisfy requirements for my current Masters course module 'Research Frontiers' and partly as a scratch pad to work out some ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)