Digital Storytelling Conversations

I start to think and then I sink
Into the paper like I was ink
~Eric B. & Rakim "I Know You Got Soul"

...Lately though, I've been sinking into the web. So much conversation about digital storytelling has been floating around. HASTAC, for example, has begun an interesting discussion here.

And discussions regarding digital storytelling in the Deep South continue, thanks to Joe Lambert, faculty at Tulane University, the MondoBizarro project, and wonderful new colleagues from Mobile, AL and Georgia Southern University. Stay tuned!

The genre continues to change and develop, and to be informed by the perspectives of teachers, academics, community activists and scholars from diverse disciplines. I look forward to continuing participation in this very interesting conversation.

New Literacy Going Global in Old School Ways :)

Critical Literacy Across Continents

Janks and Comber reported on a very intriguing social action through literacy project with global intents. The alphabet books were a great way to unearth a level of the students’ perceptions of their respective cities, and how they wanted their cities represented. It seemed like Janks guided the students through questioning in South Africa more than the students were directed or swayed in Australia. However, the comment is made that Janks was constructing an environment where writing was going to be presented to an audience as opposed to being only graded or assessed by a teacher. The concerns and issues the students faced in each city were sobering. Janks and Comber astutely noted that while giving the students the tools to express the injustices around them is important, in order for social action to occur then change must follow the students’ work. This research project provides a rich example of how literacy in a global context can be an aide to social action.

Crossing the Margins: Literacy, Semiotics, and the Recontextualisation of Meanings

Kell followed and analyzed the plight of one woman, Noma, in using language to be heard. Kell delineated Noma’s experiences into four strips or steps. First, she used her words in a meeting to express the problems she was having with a poorly built home she had been given; problematically she was never really heard or valued at these points. Second, she wrote a ten page narrative explaining the injustices she was experiencing by the poor facilities. She read this story aloud to friends and neighbors. Thirdly, she was allowed to read her story at the meeting where she had previously tried to express her concern. From there she was allowed to represent herself at the national meeting. It seems as if through her story she received recognition and value. Kell suggested that because Noma was disabled, she had not been seen as having anything valid to say. With the power of written language in her hands, people listened. Lastly,the national organization responded by rebuilding her house.

Through the plight of one woman, Noma, who found written language to be a source of power and opportunity, Kell answers Brant and Clinton’s question “Can we not see the ways that literacy arises out of local, particular, situated human interactions while also seeing how it regularly arrives from other places—infiltrating, disjointing and displacing local life?” (p. 148; Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 343). She also poses the question of how to fragment activity systems (one method for understanding context) into units of analysis. Thus, Kell attempted to break up Noma’s experiences and contexts into four strips or steps.

First, she used her words in a meeting to express the problems she was having with a poorly built home she had been given; problematically she was never really heard or valued at these points. Second, she wrote a ten page narrative explaining the injustices she was experiencing by the poor facilities. She read this story aloud to friends and neighbors. Thirdly, she was allowed to read her story at the meeting where she had previously tried to express her concern. From there she was allowed to represent herself at the national meeting. It seems as if through her story she received recognition and value. Kell suggested that because Noma was disabled, she had not been seen as having anything valid to say. With the power of written language in her hands, people listened. Lastly, the national organization responded by rebuilding her house. Noma’s story is one of particular interest in the power that came with her ability to use written language “locally” to “displace” restricting assumptions and disregard she encountered from those making decisions regarding her home.

Technology and the Phone

I'm sitting at my computer entering registration information for students enrolling in a summer enrichment program.
It is interesting to me to see the patterns in the information on the registration forms. How many mothers have kept their last names, who is listed as an emergancy contact, how many phone numbers are listed, etc.

Traditionally you might have had a home phone. I remember my mother-in-law talking about being on an army base and being able to pick up the phone, talk directly to the operator, and the operator could tract down her mother on the base. I also remember my own mother talking about learning to "chat" long distance because initially she only used it for short news since it was expensive. I know my first year teaching I was in a Title I school teaching 4th grade and many of the children had never touched a phone. Their parents had cell phones and the students weren't allowed to use them.

So what I am seeing in these registration forms is that sometimes you may have a home number and then work and cell phone numbers for both mom and dad, and sometimes there is obviously no land line and they solely use cell phones. Additionally, many people (myself included) may have a local number but have left their cell phone numbers based out of a previous area code. I even have at least one application where mom and dad have different area codes. This doesn't even consider communication services via the Internet.

I wonder what this all says about how we communicate and the transitivity of people.

webblogs

I was pretty interested in the different typologies of blogs -figure 4.2- and how the evolution of the blog world has created so much more of a relevant (and realisitc) distribution of writing/thoughts on the net- it seems so much more authentic than academic journals when people post more frequently and are engaged in conversations that are dialectic and force the ideas of the conversations in more thoughot provoking spheres..

Digital Divide

I know in class we have talked about the have and have-nots of technology.
In one of my other classes the instructor provided a link to Digital Divide.org that addresses the issue.

Digital Literacy

Marsh (pg. 19-38) Young Children’s Digital Literacy:
I thought that there were some interesting themes running through the writing. The development of Children’s Digital Literacy has some parallel to development of skills; including issues of time spent and parental involvement. I understand from the article that there has not been much study of digital literacy with young children, but I think I personally have some questions I would like to see addressed in relation to young children:
1. What was the role of pretending to use media compared to actual use of electronic media with young children?
2. There were questions about parent involvement and development of independent media use; yet what are the differences of in development of digital literacy depending on who (parent or child) directs the use?
3. How is digital literacy development influenced by the presence of older siblings?

Finally, I thought there was an important identity question in relation to all ages. Marsh mentions that digital identity revolves around consumption and less obviously production (pg. 34-35). I wondered what level of consciousness of consumption and production influenced online identity.

Alvermann, (pg. 39-56) Ned & Kevin’s emails:
The email discussion in the Ned & Kevin case study has interesting implications for education and in particular for the varying roles/ positions of power between students and teachers, teachers and parents, etc. in using email. I also thought the question of “valued literacy practices” for specific ages and for all ages was interesting.
There were two areas that I wished Alvermann would have explored further in the discussion of the case study:
I wondered why Alvermann was challenging or setting out to change the models of youth in research. It was not addressed whether this was something that grew out of the larger research study, a movement within the field, or some other influence was present.
I think there were important issues about the cultural or shared perspective between Ned and Kevin that were not addressed. The degree of overlap in shared “language” between the correspondents would seem to make a difference in the communication. My curiosity in this area may go back to my feeling that current students do not have a strong sense of “audience” when writing communication because of the speed of correspondence with technology.

Knobel & Lankshear, (pg. 72-94) Weblogs:
It was interesting to read about the history and evolution of blogs. I thought the first paragraph of the reading was particularly interesting.
The idea of what makes “powerful writing” is interesting in the context of such a readily accessible “literature” as blogs. Would you define powerful writing by the number of comments? Number of visitors to the page? The readers’ experience?
I thought it was interesting that Knobel & Lankshear said that blogs should have a purpose and a definite point-of-view. I wondered whether there were more recent versions of blogs that would change or add more criteria to their list of blog characteristics. I also wondered how you can factor in private blogs…ones where you must be invited via email to be able to read the blog.
Finally, I thought that their discussion of the “shadow” that education blogs are compared to other blogs had interesting implications for education. How should education blogs be? Who should direct them? How can they be meaningful to students and yet still educational and safe for students?

Avatar Worlds

It just so happens that in one of my other classes there was a link to a website about avatars and virtual worlds. It had information on "The Palace" which is the place Thomas studied several youth and their preferred avatars.
Basically it sounds like it is a sort of "glorified" chat space and that it has a huge range of what you can do with the avatars. However, it may just be a huge range compared to what is available in other programs. There may still be limitations on how the avatar can look.

Here is the link to Virtual Worlds Review.

Angela Thomas, Youth Online Chapters 4-7

I think one of the major issues brought out in Thomas’s research is the differences between teen exploration of identity online and that of adults. An online, somewhat anonymous presence becomes a place to reflect on the self…in place of experimentation at home in front of a mirror. The online reflection is a much more social, yet still perceived as safe, place to experiment than behind a shut door at home. My question is that, as adults who have not grown-up immersed in technology as some youth of today, can we really understand how youth view/use their online presence?

I was struck by how rich and multi-sensory the online presence of the youth was; even in text based online worlds. Thomas says, “A social theory of learning, then, is connected with learning and knowing within social participatory experiences” (page 95). The examples that Thomas gives are certainly socially based. There are definitely balances of power online that would not be available to youth solely in the real world. I was interested in how the youth regulated aspects of their worlds; such as helping someone to fit in, defining rules for their interactions, and monitoring content experienced. I found it interesting to see how the youth regulated their “worlds” either successfully (Elianna, Tianna and Jandalf) or unsuccessfully (Kayle). How might this influence how the youths’ self-concept forms?

I found this discussion about “the edited self” to be interesting. An online identity can mirror oneself, emphasize portions of oneself, or allow the self to do things that would not be acceptable in real life. Thomas gives examples of Tiana being able to realize and find people via the Internet who have similar interests as herself. Thomas even gives examples of school culture alienating some participants. However, she also mentions that Tiana and Jandalf have “a healthy set of offline activities” (page 171). These offline activities may also serve to aid in identity formation. I wonder for youth who spend most of their leisure time online, how their online activities differ from those with a more balanced online versus offline time. Also, Thomas indicates that some researchers are concerned about online activities replacing real life activities. Is this similar, or different, from the argument of a bias toward paper texts versus online texts?

Additionally, on page 114 she discusses the conscience production of self through words and online text. Many of the participants mention that, “Everything’s generally easier” (page 115) online. Are there opportunities for youth to form such conscience productions of self in the real world? How does the ability to “backspace” and the possibility of review influence how youth see themselves?

Another issue I found interesting in the reading is that Thomas mentions that these are activities for youth who have availability of the technology and leisure time to explore it. Does this have significance beyond indicating “have” versus “have not” cultures?

There were a few areas where I wish Thomas might have included more information or done more exploring.

• One area is in explaining “the palace” models. While I am familiar with role playing games, fan fiction, chat rooms, message boards, and some other online presences, I am not familiar with this reference and to truly understand the context in which these youth are creating avatars and identities I think that we need to know the context of the virtual world.
• Thomas (on page 148) discusses “out of character” chat but does not indicate whether she places more or less emphasis or weight on role playing versus out of character chat. Are they the same weight?
• Another area is that of the avatar creation limitations. Thomas comments briefly on the lack of “fat” avatar models. To my knowledge there are very few, very recent games that allow a participant to create “fat” avatars. Applications are allowing for greater choice in how an avatar looks, yet there are still limitations. She mentions the differences in gaze of the avatars and hints at possible meanings behind the differences in gaze. My question is whether youth read the same meaning into the avatars’ gaze? Additionally, I do not feel that Thomas full explored the influence on visual online identities related to the limitations inherent in creating avatars.
• Finally, Thomas only briefly makes reference to one participant’s screen name. In most cases each person involved in an online application must create a screen name that is acceptable to the rules of the application and is unique. In many cases this screen name may represent multiple avatars within the application. It is possible that the screen name chosen may say a great deal about the self-concept of the person creating the avatars.

Here are some links related to the readings:

Gathering of Elves and Middle Earth Insanity. Both are asynchronus role playing message boards.

Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. (Part 2)

Hull, G.A. & Nelson, M. E. (2005): Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22, 224-262.

Link to video in research paper : http://www.oaklanddusty.org/videos.php

The authors selected a digital media project from Digital Underground Storytelling for You(th), based on two critieria: most acclaim received and it was analyzable due to its use of only still images, voice over, and music. The method chosen to analyze the project was to utilize the timeline feature in the software that was used to create it. The story was transcribed and then assigned meaning making based on this timeline. The authors conclude that only by this multimodal method could Randy’s (the composer) story so effectively engaged the audience.

“We also believe our analysis and Randy’s story offer a strong counterclaim to the argument that digital media simply facilitate the multimodal composing that could and does exist apart from computer technologies. If we are correct, the particular meanings and the experience of viewing and constructing these meanings via this form of multimodality are unique. Believing as we do that a culture and atime’s mediational means, our psychological and material tools if you will (cf. Vygotsky, 1978), are intimately connected with our capacities to think, represent, and communicate, it would seem hugely important to widen our definition of writing to include multimodal composing as a newly available means.” (Hull, G.A. & Nelson, M. E. 2005)

The complexity of analyzing this story while it was only two minutes and 11 seconds struck me as I read the details of the authors’ efforts to do so. As with most other previous works addressing digital media, the very newness of the field of research was highlight as well as the subsequent need for more research was stressed.

Possible Discussion Question:
Did the authors’ decision not to analyze the music aspect in as extensively as the words and images of the digital story detract from their research results?
How might meaning making been assigned to the music? What tools could be utilized?

Models of Multimodal Research: Digital Storytelling as a Case Example

Hayes, R., & Matusov, E. (2005): From "ownership" to dialogic addressivity: Defining successful digital storytelling projects. THEN: Journal of Technology, Humanities, Education and Narrative

The authors address two research questions:
With such a disparity of definitions and their implicit goals, how do we define success in such projects? How can the act of collaborative digital story authorship help to develop mutual curiosity and relationship-building among the participants?
This was explored within the context of three digital story telling projects at the LLAC. Interesting points:
The discussion of the initial view of ownership as the authors deemed appropriate to the evolution of addressitivity through Bakhtin's definitions of monologic and dialogic.
“We decided that, for our purposes, dialogicity was a key element of success, since all projects by design had at least two authors (at least one adult and at least one child). Further, internal dialogicity was an especially important criterion for success, since one important purpose of the projects (and in a broader sense, the class itself), was for the students develop a dialogic relation with the children, getting to know them as living, unpredictable, non-stereotyped people (aka unfinalized). This success criterion was overlooked by the simpler and individualistic notion of ownership that we initially proposed
( Hayes & Matusov,2005).

The authors state that while the digital media project (the activity) should be in line with the University student and the children getting to know each other(the broader goal). The authors conclude that the “successful” digital media project also fostered dialogic internal addressivity between the children and the University students. Furthermore, that digital media provided a format that “for adults and children to reverse the traditional roles of child novice and adult expert, and in breaking these traditional patterns of interaction (Hayes & Matuso, 2005).

Possible discussion questions:
Do you agree with the authors switch from “ownership” to “addressivity”?
How is it appropriate to deem a digital media project successful or not when it is ambiguous by its nature? Or in what ways is it appropriate to evaluate it?

Links to digital media projects in this paper.
(Fake) Crackheads (Windows Media) (Movie format), 5823 K.
Getting to Know LACC Staff (Windows Media) (Movie format), 3467 K.

Identity as Represented through Words and Image

Identity as Represented through Words and Image
Assigned Reading: Pink, 147-217:

Ethnographic Photography and Printed Text
Pink begins by stating that photographs are representations and not “the truth” about any one society or culture (paraphrased). She further relays that it is the combination of writing (text) and images that enrich reflexive ethnography. Pages 149 and 150 contain a discussion of the appropriate use of tenses – either present or past tense – and the effect this has on the ethnographic work.
Discussion Question: Which tense do you find appropriate and why?
Pink points out that only recently have researchers began to explore the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. On page 152, Pink stresses the importance of image presentation and its use to guide or inspire the reader to reflect upon the meanings that the ethnographer assigned to the images. She reviews alternative or unconventional methods of presentation such as not captioning for intentional ambiguity such as in Berger and Mohr’s work. Pink explores Edwards’ two categories of images: expressive (creative) that encourages the reader to apply their own interpretation and realist which uses images in a documentation style. The interesting point is that the two categories need not be mutually exclusive.
Discussion Question: Do you agree or disagree with this mix of styles within the same ethnographic work?
Pink cautions that ethics should be considered in a broader context than just the willingness of the informant. The ethnographer’s own “knowledge of the social, cultural, and political contexts” (p. 166) should also be an ethical consideration.

Video in Ethnographic Representation
Pink explores the role of video editing. Pink discusses reader interpretation which can be influenced in various ways. For example, in guided viewing the audience is asked to think about the subject in a particular context or point of view as they watch the video.
Discussion Question: Is it appropriate or what value is added when the ethnographer influences the viewing beyond the text and video?

I thought it was an interesting ethical issue that Pink raises on page 183 in the notes to Figure 7.1. Pink references an incident where she was a presenter and some audience members were photographing the presenters’ slides to practice a form of visual note taking. Pink requested that her slides not be photographed on her belief that a research participant may have agreed for the presenter to show a clip in public but not the additional layer of that being photographed or taped by yet another researcher and used. Discussion Question: Do you agree with Pink’s ethical rationale for asking that her slides not be photographed?

Ethnographic Hypermedia Representation
Pink defines interactive hypermedia “usually consists of sets of interlinked files that contain writing words, still or moving images, sound or a combination of these (p. 192).”
The hypermedia is used to support interactivity on multilevel planes.


Key themes that run across these chapters are the ethical obligations of the ethnographer to the informant or participant, the need for further research on multimedia in ethnography, and the value of reflexive ethnography.

Other websites:

Video in research: introducing the video ethnography process (Sarah Pink 2004)http://www.tlrp.org/rcbn/capacity/Activities/Themes/IT-assisted/videoinresearchSarahPink.ppt
This site contains online resources that Pink states can be used in conjunction with her text Doing Visual Ethnography:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/visualising_ethnography/
Another website that can be used for further reference in relation to Pink’s book entitled Working Images.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/workingimagesbook/chapters.htm

Hey

Goood questions tasha, I look forward to discussing them in class
I think the reflexivity versus the scientific realism and objectivity that govern conservative ways of understanding are intrinsic to how people think of research- as some divine truth waiting to be discovered. The epistemological shift come from the idea that knowledge is, in fact, situated among and between different people, experiences and situations and in order to understand authentic reality ( I think the non –sugar coated version) it is important for us to use not just acknowledge our own biases but represent research as something we are activity participating in and influenced. This is particularly important in the social sciences where gender, age, class etc. are inextricable from the research conducted work to influence the understandings gained for more than we see.
I think these types of understanding are antithetical to what we are normally used to because the natural sciences, from which most positivist scientific research is derived and from which most academically situated research is conducted, proposes to uncover truths and universal understandings when in fact it limits itself by not considering the different ways people represent themselves, communicate with others and act in relation to situations around them.
This book offers a great perspective on the types of research we should be doing =)

Pink Part I – Thinking about Visual Research

In her introduction, Pink gives a brief overview of discussions that have taken place regarding the role of film and photography in ethnographic research. She explains the evolution of thought from a stance of irrelevance, to an objectified tool, to a more subjective component of ethnography.

Throughout the introduction and Part I, Pink promotes a participatory or collaborative approach, similar to Chaplin’s “visual sociology” (p. 11). Pink shows how issues of ethics should encourage researchers typically to choose such collaboration (she does however concede that each research scenario is different and thus photography and film should be used as most appropriate).

Although Pink addresses the following questions, I think they would make for good discussion questions about “doing visual ethnography:”

1. Can reality be observed and recorded? Why or why not?
2. If something is visible is it true? Explain your thoughts.
3. Can objective information be extrapolated from the observation or recording of participants? Why or why not?

*Paraphrased (p. 23)

I thought the point Pink makes regarding subjectivity and tendency to value ethical codes of conduct differently is essential to all researchers interested in ethnography; it was also a point emphatically addressed in the training I went to for teaching overseas. I liked how Pink used Rapport’s guide, and think we all would find it useful in the case of evaluating a cultural practice. Furthermore, it is very important that an ethnographer takes time to try to uncover “local notions of harm and anxiety” (p. 42).

Lastly, as ethnographers, I think it is important, as Pink said, to reflect on how we bring both our personal and professional views to any study, and to incorporate how participants might perceive us. This idea again reminds me of Steve McCurray’s work as a photographer for National Geographic. You can read about the Afgan women I mentioned in class last week at the link attached to his name.

You can read about the Afghan woman I mentioned in class last week at the link attached to his name, or at least see 2 contrasting pictures of her I attached to this post.

-Tasha

Morality and Media

I think the frame analysis article and this article overlap in a variety of ways - I particularly like the quote on pg. 6 "Experience, both mediated and non-meditated is culturally specific" and they go on to so say that "moral order ....should be commensurate with the scope of global interdependence"
I think the article seems to make the claim that technology etc. have "Extended the range of communication" but I wonder really? to what extent? In most of the world, people scarcely have Internet still, even though they might have a phone- even still are the more "global" portrayals of what is occurring in the world being accessed? I'm not so sure, I think alot of the world lives through folk wisdom and gossip, regardless of our perspective...just a thought..

Looking Out My Window and Thinking about Goffman

On page 8 of Frame Analysis (1974), Erving Goffman writes:

“I assume that when individuals attend to any current situation, they face the question: “What is going on here?” Whether asked explicitly, as in times of confusion and doubt, or tacitly, during occasions of usual certitude, the question is put and the answer to it is presumed by the way the individuals then proceed to get on with the affairs at hand.”

For me, Goffman’s ideas are most helpful and accessible when I come back to the idea that his fundamental purpose as a social scientist was to (hopefully) help other social scientists to be able to address the question of what is going on in different social settings. Right away, he kicks things off by throwing out two terms that ground his investigation of social life:

"The term “strip” will be used to refer to any arbitrary slice or cut from the stream of ongoing activity, including here sequences of happenings, real or fictive, as seen from the perspective of those subjectively involved in sustaining an interest in them. …And of course much use will be made of Bateson’s use of the term “frame” I assume that definitions of a situation are built up in accordance with principles of organization which govern events—at least social ones—and our subjective involvement in them." (p. 10).

Later, he puts these concepts in the context of an overall analytic model:

In sum, then, we tend to perceive events in terms of primary frameworks, and the type of frameworks we employ provides a way of describing the event to which it is applied. (p. 24)

So. I am writing this post a Monday morning. In the still chilly, pre-spring sunlight, with the sky a very pale blue, I look out of my window onto the quad at 10:52am, and I see people—presumably, mostly students—hurrying across several zigzagging lines of sidewalk, some crossing the lawn that separates these walks, and almost all of them walk with a sense of urgency, many of them walking in groups of twos, threes and fours. Clearly, I can apply Goffman’s question to this scene, from my vantage point. In a while, I will view a similar scene, but I will be among increasing numbers of people traveling across campus.

With this in mind, the other points that Goffman eloquently brings out for me are the ideas that:

(1) The frames provided by different kinds of media (he uses theater, movies, radio) shape how we perceive social action, and
(2) Media (or modes of communication) can take on different kinds of significance within social action of different types (he gives examples of music as a background while working, music as a bridge between scenes in a radio drama, and music as a portent to dramatic action).

Accordingly, in order to explore these concepts as they are evidenced in everyday life, Goffman writes that “a corpus of transcription practices must be involved for transforming a strip of offstage, real activity into a strip of staged being,” (p. 138) and in developing these transcription practices and conventions, he says that:

Behind the need for these conventions is something worth examining in more detail, something that might be called the “multiple channel effect.” When an individual is an immediate witness to an actual scene, events tend to present themselves through multiple channels, the focus of the participant shifting from moment to moment from one channel to another…The staging of someone’s situation as an immediate participant therefore requires some replication of this multiplicity, yet very often replication cannot be fully managed….In addition to the “multiple channel effect,” another element in the organization of experience can be nicely seen in the radio frame: syntactically different functions are accorded to phenomenally similar events. The question is that of the realm status of an event; and some sort of frame-analytical perspective is required in order for this question to be put.

Goffman wrote Frame Analysis within a time period in which more fluid interactionist perspectives brought a significant challenge to social science that emphasized structure and form. However, the ability of his ideas (particularly in a time when the means for sophisticated multi-channel analyses were limited) to help us to continue to keep in mind the “laminated” character of all social life, continues to shape my thinking, even within the postmodern, post-structuralist times that we currently inhabit.

Silverstone- Media Ethics

I found Silverstone to be very dense reading. There was discussion and defining of many important ideas such as other versus self, thinking versus judgment, author versus audience, mediation, appearance, mediapolis, boundaries, globalization, proper distance and narrative. Some of the questions that came up during the reading where:
Do other people’s views of us change us, and if so, how?
Does the Internet distance us or bring us closer together?
Do we or don’t we live without reference to the media?
Has technology homogenized culture? Is this a good or a bad thing?
Can globalization be conceived without media?
Is the Internet making the world more global and liveable?
Who controls the online media, the author or the audience?
How is media “a key component of the cultural infrastructure?
How does online space influence relative moralism and ethics?
Why can’t human beings live without the play of differentness and sameness?
Has the media lost its role as the guardians of public good?
Is media the key to rhetoric’s formation and acceptance?
How does mediated communication offer and define our participation with others?
What are the differences between just viewing the mediapolis (pumping the key pad, clicking the mouse) and participating in it?
What resources has globalized media provided for understanding and responding to differences?
How does media, particularly online media, polarize global culture?
In what ways does media change the possibilities for collective action?
Is it as Sliverstone asserts, that it is the responsibility of public media to provide resources to make effective judgments?
Is proper distance the same for all?
What is the status of the mediapolis in global communications and in mediation?
What are the implications in that the creators are also the audience?
Do all of the Web 2.0 tools make the Internet a plural medium?

La Perruque…

Authoring Selves and Language and Agency

The concepts of authoring oneself or Holoquist’s notion of “dialogism” based on Bakhtin’s work are relevant for our discussions of identity. Essentially, Holland et al. set out the parameters of authoring oneself based on his or her context (thus using the language in all its avenues of the culture and historical situatedness, or heteroglossia) in dialogue, whether as an inner voice (influenced by external voices and vocabulary) or a spoken dialogue. Consequently, identity is always developing, based on these dialogic relationships. Ahearn takes the issue of language further by illustrating how language affects agency (agency defined as “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act” p. 130), even looking at the grammar constructions of expressing self as the primary agent acting upon something/one else in different languages.

Holland et al. take great efforts to compare and contrast Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s ideas. One avenue I found interesting was the elucidation of Vygotsky’s “pull yourself up by your bootstrap through language” as criticized for lacking in addressing the power and privilege often embedded in language. Ahearn also addressed a similar concept with “symbolic violence” as coined by Bourdieu while connecting it to Bakhtin’s idea that there are “no neutral words” (p. 111). I like the quote from Bakhtin used by Ahearn (and possibly in the Holland et al. text) that uses the imagery of “taste” to illustrate how words are always nuanced with flavor or association beyond a sterile meaning.

In thinking of the self authoring the world based on what is already in existence reminds me a little of the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Is a person’s identity completely bound to the language and social setting where one finds oneself? De Certeau’s explanation of “la perruque” begs the question of how much self-authoring can one do under the constraints of those in power of language, economics, and society? And as Ahearn questioned, “how [can] social reproduction become[s] social transformation” (p. 131)?

Agency and the absence of it

Just a thought..after reading the ahearn article, I really am questioning if there
is such a thing as agency ..I think some very important points were made about how agency is
situated and inextrivable from history, power relations, language and so on. I think of revolutionary figures in history and, to me, it makes more sense (concerning their agency) in that they went agianst frameworks of meaning (understanding agency in a different way) in that they realized adversity but that it was an opportunity to overcome ideologies/situations etc. that were socially constructed realities for certain people.
The "autonomous model" of literacy practices was pretty nuts...I guess when you want to rationalize things you find a way..

Language in a Social Perspective

I thought it was interesting the first part of this section how Firth and Malinowski are differentiated based on their interpretation of linguistics – the context of culture versus Firth who studied context of situation (and the generalized patterns of actual behavior) and how behavior potential and meaning potential are derived from them. First, it makes me think of a phrase we talked about in Qual I “bless your heart” and how it can mean different things in different contexts –or what can be referred to as “delicacy” on pg .49, so if language is so incredibly situated, how can we interpret meaning as researchers? This was a question I struggled with, because every situation we observe, comes with it inherent meanings, (gestures, winks etc. ) that people privy to that situation understand—I guess what I am asking is, can we ever understand the “social foundations” of behavioral meanings? (Pg 60 end of second paragraph proposes we can?).

This article also discusses the “grammatical system of adult language” (pg.61) as 1) ideational, 2) interpersonal and 3) textual. These refer to a persons (generally) experience, social interplay and within context and creating text. I thought that was a good start to understanding how language functions and is organized –but I wonder if it’s more complex than these idea suggest. On pg. 64, I agree with the statement that “some concept does underlie the approach of the school towards its responsibility for the pupils success in his mother tongue.”

I think I am beginning and *trying* to make sense of this field called “sociolinguistics” and its relation to the classroom, you see in the classroom that I have experienced, I had students with different dialects, different ways of speaking the normalized version of English and a subject that I was supposed to teach that was a whole new set of vocabulary. So I definitely understand the blending in of different cultures and “life worlds” but to a point where everyone understands what you are talking about is difficult. For example, the DNA example that they gave in the text—too explain the functioning of the protein complexes that modify DNA and the functioning of each to students is incredibly time consuming –I guess I am thinking of the practicality of teaching linguistics from a basic level, and I see it, in the current educational context, an *almost* insurmountable endeavor…

frame analysis and schemata

This was an interesting essay- I think it was an important introduction to understanding human intention, but can they completely explain this in terms of primary frameworks? I guess thats what I am grappling with here..I do agree there is a certain order and predicatablity of human behavior but, I guess are they overarching and can we depend on them to determine/predict (accurately maybe?) human behavior?
I am going to conduct my first observation of a PTA meeting next week for my qual class and this essay does help me to see that there are certain actions that are "natural", "social" and "causal" phenomena..but I guess it might be difficult to understand/determine in that short span of time which is which..especially when they might have underlying meanings I might not be aware of..
Great essay, cant wait to discuss in class..

Avatar Ad

I noticed that there was an ad on my facebook page to make an avatar. It seems like by using a picture of Angelina Joli juxtaposed to an avatar, Zwinky is trying to send the message "look like whoever you want" while simultaneously implying "be whoever you want."

Initial Thoughts on the Multimodality of Identity

Readings for this week's class on the intersections of technology and identity as a multimodal process were taken from:

--Philip Levine & Ron Scollon (Eds). (2004) Discourse & Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis. (Specifically, their introductory chapter and the chapter by Theo Van Leeuwen entitled "Ten Reasons Why Linguists Should Pay Attention to Visual Communication")
--Angela Thomas (2007) Youth Online: Identity and Literacy in the Digital Age.
--Anna de Fina, Deborah Schiffrin, & Michael Bamber (2006) Discourse and Identity.

In reading the selections for this week's class, and in reading your comments, the questions that emerged (for me) seemed to be grouped into three categories:

Identity
How are our identities shaped by different kinds of social spaces/practices?
How is this process in online interactions similar to or different from our identity-shaping face-to-face interactions?
How often do we engage in critical reflection regarding who we are--when do we engage in this reflection, and why?
What role does critical reflection on identity have to do with crafting an agentive self?

Identity as Multimodal
How does multimodal discourse analysis help us explore the concept of identity?
How does it shape our thinking and practice in helpful ways?
How can what we are learning about the multimodal fashioning of identity assist us in constructing a philosophical stance toward how to "take up" identity in our thinking? In relating research to the practice of education?

Identities On and Offline…Identities In and Out of School
How can we apply what's learned about identity in out-of-school contexts to our goals as educators working with teachers and students in school?
Does the identity work done in different technological/social spaces have bearing on the creation of selves that are agentive, active learners? If yes…how and in what contexts?

Epistemologically and methodologically, these questions--and the readings-- highlight how articulating one's understanding of identity is a critical foundation for any research that investigates identity as a multimodal discursive performance process. The importance of unearthing the specific understandings we have of what identity is and how it functions is undeniable. In our explorations of how identities are enacted in and out-of-school, our footprints reveal how heavily we have been pressed by various theories of identity and self. Erik Erikson. Kenneth Gergen. George Herbert Mead. Michel Foucault. Judith Butler...And since we are concerning ourselves with teaching and learning, what comes to mind immediately in considering how each of these individuals characterizes identity?

Agency.