In this essay (from 2011) Jeff Bezemer and Diane Mavers (posted at eBook references page) review how ethnographers are transcribing digital documentations (mostly video + audio tapes & combinations of the two) and how they represent these forms in their texts.
Theory of transcription
They set up a theory which represents the transcribing process as essentially interpretive. In fact, they make (what I think is a very smart point) that the act of transcribing places the transcriber in a position of juxtaposing semiotic (meaning making) systems associated with different modes = and thus is not only an interpretation, but an interpretation prompted by the kinds of modal/conceptual interactions (they use the term transduction for translating meanings from one mode to another) that are at the heart of generating new ideas. So we all need to make good use of your transcribing processes!
They describe transcription as semiotic (interpretive) work that do the following.
frame what it represents (that is, data is transcribed for a purpose, and this purpose sets up a frame for the transcription process that determines what and how material will be transcribed).
selects or samples not only from within a corpus of data, but from among myriad features of the data (i.e. audio recordings may select for words, volume, tone of voice, delivery speed, simultaneity etc etc). These selections are guided by the purpose for the transcript.
highlights or focuses the data through its visual presentation (pp 194-196)
The remainder of the essay discusses/analyzes transcripts that use a variety of modes: word/image/spatial organization to represent the events the ethnographers are discussing. Reading this might give you ideas about what kind of data you want to collect - and about how to represent it on your page.
This essay is written primarily about representing data in PRINT texts = so we will necessarily expand on it. At the same time, the clear analysis of how data representations work is wonderfully useful for our project.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
6.27 Evolving forms of ethnographic practice
Laura Robinson and Jeremy Schulz's article: New avenues of sociological inquiry: Evolving forms of ethnographic practice (in Sociology, and available through the Kean Library's Sage database) provides an overview of ethnographic work to explore/document/theorize online interactions and communities.
They characterize these ethnographies as falling into three waves: pioneering, legitimizing, and multi-modal.
The authors describe pioneering ethnographies as representing new media primarily as offering space for identity play and deception. This focus created/was created by conceptualizing online and offline worlds/identity performances as fundamentally different and separate. This assumption contributes to an "exoticizing perspective" that was "further complicated by the primacy of text" in early internet representations of self, Researchers who sought to incorporate offline behaviors often relied on accounts from informants (sometimes online, sometimes offline) to "fill in" or "verify" offline behaviors/identities.
Legitimizing ethnographies assumed an "essential continuity between off- and online identities" = an integrationist perspective, and they used this perspective as a basis for "translating offline methods to conduct fieldwork in online spaces" 689. They redefined "fieldsite" "participant observation" and interaction" so as to include cyberspace as a site, participating in online textual exchanges and otherwise taking part in online community activities as participant observation and interaction. What is more, legitimizing cyberethnographers argued that "where in the offline world the ethnographer must translate the fieldsite into fieldnotes or text, online members took on the ethnographer's task by translating the offline range of interactive cuing mechanisms into textual format. . . . [They also claimed that] . . .cyberethnographic practice produces one fewer lens of distortion, because the text is the interaction that is recorded verbatim as data" 691.
Multi-modal ethnographies arose with the advent of Web 2.0 and the myriad possibilities for non-textual interaction. Within this wave, participant observation includes active content production (as in full participation within a community that goes way beyond posting text). Unsurprisingly, this wave is questioning the "viability of traditional modes of dissemination of both results and primary data => move to multimodality. The focus of these studies has turned toward "how online interaction generates physical co-presence or activities in the offline world" => and the move toward connective ethnography as discussed by Leander (that is, real lives need to be documented as well).
How is this relevant to our study?
1) It positions our methods of data collection and representation within the evolution of ethnographic studies. There are still very few multimodal ethnographies, and even fewer which use analysis of modality as an important feature of meaning making within the communities they study.
2) It provides points of reference for questions we might ask about our data. For example, if legitimizing ethnographers argued that their participants' text eliminated one "lens of distortion" (ie the ethnographer's textual representation of what prticipants said) - what does this imply about videos, audio recordings, etc produced by participants? Are these artifacts "seamless" "direct" representations - or are they "changed" by the many online (in a new context, surrounded by the ethnographer's text rather than embedded within their original context) and offline (readers will be in very different places - mentally and physically - when reading the video file, screenshot or whatever) differences that will be embedded in the ethnographer's practices for viewing, saving and re-representing the file. Are these significant? What sort of "lens" do they interpose?
3) It directs us to existing ethnographies to use as models and counter-examples. I have already ordered Kendall's Hanging out in the Virtual Pub, and Boellstorff's Coming of Age in Second Life - and will be glad to loan them. I also ordered Pink's latest book, Doing Sensual Ethnography. I don't expect anyone to read all of our references from cover to cover - but scanning them can give us a feel for cyber-ethnographer's focus, methods, and representational practices.
They characterize these ethnographies as falling into three waves: pioneering, legitimizing, and multi-modal.
The authors describe pioneering ethnographies as representing new media primarily as offering space for identity play and deception. This focus created/was created by conceptualizing online and offline worlds/identity performances as fundamentally different and separate. This assumption contributes to an "exoticizing perspective" that was "further complicated by the primacy of text" in early internet representations of self, Researchers who sought to incorporate offline behaviors often relied on accounts from informants (sometimes online, sometimes offline) to "fill in" or "verify" offline behaviors/identities.
Legitimizing ethnographies assumed an "essential continuity between off- and online identities" = an integrationist perspective, and they used this perspective as a basis for "translating offline methods to conduct fieldwork in online spaces" 689. They redefined "fieldsite" "participant observation" and interaction" so as to include cyberspace as a site, participating in online textual exchanges and otherwise taking part in online community activities as participant observation and interaction. What is more, legitimizing cyberethnographers argued that "where in the offline world the ethnographer must translate the fieldsite into fieldnotes or text, online members took on the ethnographer's task by translating the offline range of interactive cuing mechanisms into textual format. . . . [They also claimed that] . . .cyberethnographic practice produces one fewer lens of distortion, because the text is the interaction that is recorded verbatim as data" 691.
Multi-modal ethnographies arose with the advent of Web 2.0 and the myriad possibilities for non-textual interaction. Within this wave, participant observation includes active content production (as in full participation within a community that goes way beyond posting text). Unsurprisingly, this wave is questioning the "viability of traditional modes of dissemination of both results and primary data => move to multimodality. The focus of these studies has turned toward "how online interaction generates physical co-presence or activities in the offline world" => and the move toward connective ethnography as discussed by Leander (that is, real lives need to be documented as well).
How is this relevant to our study?
1) It positions our methods of data collection and representation within the evolution of ethnographic studies. There are still very few multimodal ethnographies, and even fewer which use analysis of modality as an important feature of meaning making within the communities they study.
2) It provides points of reference for questions we might ask about our data. For example, if legitimizing ethnographers argued that their participants' text eliminated one "lens of distortion" (ie the ethnographer's textual representation of what prticipants said) - what does this imply about videos, audio recordings, etc produced by participants? Are these artifacts "seamless" "direct" representations - or are they "changed" by the many online (in a new context, surrounded by the ethnographer's text rather than embedded within their original context) and offline (readers will be in very different places - mentally and physically - when reading the video file, screenshot or whatever) differences that will be embedded in the ethnographer's practices for viewing, saving and re-representing the file. Are these significant? What sort of "lens" do they interpose?
3) It directs us to existing ethnographies to use as models and counter-examples. I have already ordered Kendall's Hanging out in the Virtual Pub, and Boellstorff's Coming of Age in Second Life - and will be glad to loan them. I also ordered Pink's latest book, Doing Sensual Ethnography. I don't expect anyone to read all of our references from cover to cover - but scanning them can give us a feel for cyber-ethnographer's focus, methods, and representational practices.
6.27 Multimodal ethnography
Back in 2006, Bella Dicks, Bambo Soyinka, and Amanda Cody wrote an awesome essay, Multimodal Ethnography. The link here is to Sage, but you can get a paid-for copy through the Sage Premiere data base at the Kean library.
The focus is primarily on how the choice of media for data collection and representation create different versions of the community/field setting you are studying. This is because different media set up "readers" to make different meanings. These different meanings arise from the fact that each medium allows readers access to (different) sets of semiotic modes associated with that medium.
Modes = "abstract, non-material resources of meaning-making (obvious ones include writing, speech and images; less obvious ones include gestures, facial expression, texture, size and shape, even colour). . . Modes cannot be directly observed, for they are abstract resouces: they are rule-governed, codified sets of meaning-resources, involving the ida of formal 'grammars' - for example, the 'grammar' of film and that of writing . . ." 82
Media ="are the specific material forms in which modes are realized, including tools and materials.
So "writing" as a verb may be thought of as referring to the "modes" it entails, and "writing" as a noun would be the medium that invokes the modes associated with written texts. ** at least that is the way I am understanding this before going back to re-read Kress.
Before they get into the analysis of field-documentation for her project she makes a distinction between inherent features of the worlds we study (what is "there"); our fieldnotes/docuentations of what happens = our perceptions of what is "there" in the field. Data records are representations - already interpretations. They are not what is "there". What is "there" (if it is anything at all) is always becoming/disappearing - and our perception of it is always local, partial, filtered through our ideological positioning, and documented in light of our modes of perception + representation.
They also set up the idea that the field is always multimediated - and our records of what happened are always simplifications of that "what happened" = (and sometimes translations between/across modes).
Why is modality important for ethnographers to think about?
Dick et al make a compelling argument for the importance of attention to the modalities of data collection + representation (eg fieldnotes v photos v videos v video with sound etc) in their analysis of modalities invoked by different media (see p 88ff).
For example, they described writing as primarily employing verbal language (yeah, I know, this does an end run around the idea that it is an image - but let's let that go for now) and that the modality of photos is image. In comparing the primary modes of these media, we come up with something like the following.
Writing
allows other modes to be described in their absence ("colour, sound, shapes, textures as well as actions and movement")
appears as subjective/affords a particular perspective (that of the writer)
allows evaluation, emotional response
perspective can 'jump' =>allow for movement in time and place, and be multiple
Photograph
interpreted as objective =>what is really their- the "shaping" effected by the Machine (the camera) and the photographer is often overlooked
positioned within the perspective of the camera
fixed/static perspective
access to modes of physicality (colour, texture, shape, relationship)
89-90 They go on to compare the modalities available in writing/photography to what is made available in edited video (two shots with a split screen juxtaposed) and note that: far fewer modes are in evidence in the fieldnotes than in the video footage. Fieldnotes: narrative + syntax (which can describe other modes in their absence). But they also give us access to interpretive information that the video does not: they give "immediate clues to the writer's interests"/biases, expectations; afford clear sense of interpretation => so that interpretations that are implicit to the framing/justaposition/selection in the video - are (can be) explicit in the writing (and could be explicit in a video with voice over on a second run through?/more editing)
and so on about temporality + hierarchy (this part, 91) is pretty interesting = though audio recordings confound some of the discussion about speech v writing.
Sum up = "multimodal representation implies the need for careful consideration of the particular kinds of meaning afforded by the different media
Why is this important to our project?
The observations/reflections in this essay seem important to our project in a number of ways.
1. Because we are documenting online experiences/communities, all of our field data will be multimodal. It is important for us to remember that in every case ONLY part of our field will be mediated (there will always be someone on the other side of the screen from the images we capture - and part of their experience of the on-screen activity is what is going on is the space where their body is situated). This means that the experiences we are documenting will always have mediated and sensory components - which will be experienced through complex combinations of modes.
2. Part of our "field" will already be mediated. The on-screen data will be there as an object - available for observation as a "clone" of the object observed by our participants. The differences will be in terms of the machines on which they are viewed (phone, computer screen, ipad, reader . . .), the material-world,context of the reading, the perspective/context of the reader, and so on. These data will raise questions about whether screenshots and screen casts are in some ways closer simulations of what participants experienced than say => photographs, videos or write-ups of reading other texts? While at first glance this may seem a "seamless" representation of participant's experience = I see our ethnographies as taking apart that assumption.
3. Our representations will be partial in different ways than traditional texts- despite their multimodality or perhaps because of them? Because our representations will be hyper-linked and audio-visual, in some ways we can create simulations of what happens on-screen - but not the experience of on-screen (the life of the community) - and we must be aware of that.Contemplating the particular multimodal nature of our observations, documentation, and representations (interpretations) can allow us to account for some of the difference.
Whew. So that is pretty abstract. Just to nail this down, here is an action component.
1. As you collect your data (participate in your community), note YOUR context = physical environment, emotional responses, sensations, diversions and so on. A journal with dates/time that correspond to data would be good. Remember that your participation - as a member of your community - is one kind of evidence of how the actions on the bright side of the screen affect what shows up ON the screen.
2. Include inquiries about material-world contexts surrounding specific posts/on-line interactions. If multimodal/sensory ethnography is going to work for us - we need data to do the "connective" work.
3. Write up/describe the modes (abstract interpretive resources=writing, images, sounds, speech, spatial arrangements, colors, etc) + use of media within your field data. => Analyze the layout, images, use of sounds + video in the online spaces/material world spaces you are working with.
4. Start to write up some reflections (analytic memos) about how media/modes influenced your/your participants experience of your community.
I think this is just so cool. Let me know if you need a copy of the article.
The focus is primarily on how the choice of media for data collection and representation create different versions of the community/field setting you are studying. This is because different media set up "readers" to make different meanings. These different meanings arise from the fact that each medium allows readers access to (different) sets of semiotic modes associated with that medium.
Modes = "abstract, non-material resources of meaning-making (obvious ones include writing, speech and images; less obvious ones include gestures, facial expression, texture, size and shape, even colour). . . Modes cannot be directly observed, for they are abstract resouces: they are rule-governed, codified sets of meaning-resources, involving the ida of formal 'grammars' - for example, the 'grammar' of film and that of writing . . ." 82
Media ="are the specific material forms in which modes are realized, including tools and materials.
So "writing" as a verb may be thought of as referring to the "modes" it entails, and "writing" as a noun would be the medium that invokes the modes associated with written texts. ** at least that is the way I am understanding this before going back to re-read Kress.
Before they get into the analysis of field-documentation for her project she makes a distinction between inherent features of the worlds we study (what is "there"); our fieldnotes/docuentations of what happens = our perceptions of what is "there" in the field. Data records are representations - already interpretations. They are not what is "there". What is "there" (if it is anything at all) is always becoming/disappearing - and our perception of it is always local, partial, filtered through our ideological positioning, and documented in light of our modes of perception + representation.
They also set up the idea that the field is always multimediated - and our records of what happened are always simplifications of that "what happened" = (and sometimes translations between/across modes).
Why is modality important for ethnographers to think about?
Dick et al make a compelling argument for the importance of attention to the modalities of data collection + representation (eg fieldnotes v photos v videos v video with sound etc) in their analysis of modalities invoked by different media (see p 88ff).
For example, they described writing as primarily employing verbal language (yeah, I know, this does an end run around the idea that it is an image - but let's let that go for now) and that the modality of photos is image. In comparing the primary modes of these media, we come up with something like the following.
Writing
allows other modes to be described in their absence ("colour, sound, shapes, textures as well as actions and movement")
appears as subjective/affords a particular perspective (that of the writer)
allows evaluation, emotional response
perspective can 'jump' =>allow for movement in time and place, and be multiple
Photograph
interpreted as objective =>what is really their- the "shaping" effected by the Machine (the camera) and the photographer is often overlooked
positioned within the perspective of the camera
fixed/static perspective
access to modes of physicality (colour, texture, shape, relationship)
89-90 They go on to compare the modalities available in writing/photography to what is made available in edited video (two shots with a split screen juxtaposed) and note that: far fewer modes are in evidence in the fieldnotes than in the video footage. Fieldnotes: narrative + syntax (which can describe other modes in their absence). But they also give us access to interpretive information that the video does not: they give "immediate clues to the writer's interests"/biases, expectations; afford clear sense of interpretation => so that interpretations that are implicit to the framing/justaposition/selection in the video - are (can be) explicit in the writing (and could be explicit in a video with voice over on a second run through?/more editing)
and so on about temporality + hierarchy (this part, 91) is pretty interesting = though audio recordings confound some of the discussion about speech v writing.
Sum up = "multimodal representation implies the need for careful consideration of the particular kinds of meaning afforded by the different media
Why is this important to our project?
The observations/reflections in this essay seem important to our project in a number of ways.
1. Because we are documenting online experiences/communities, all of our field data will be multimodal. It is important for us to remember that in every case ONLY part of our field will be mediated (there will always be someone on the other side of the screen from the images we capture - and part of their experience of the on-screen activity is what is going on is the space where their body is situated). This means that the experiences we are documenting will always have mediated and sensory components - which will be experienced through complex combinations of modes.
2. Part of our "field" will already be mediated. The on-screen data will be there as an object - available for observation as a "clone" of the object observed by our participants. The differences will be in terms of the machines on which they are viewed (phone, computer screen, ipad, reader . . .), the material-world,context of the reading, the perspective/context of the reader, and so on. These data will raise questions about whether screenshots and screen casts are in some ways closer simulations of what participants experienced than say => photographs, videos or write-ups of reading other texts? While at first glance this may seem a "seamless" representation of participant's experience = I see our ethnographies as taking apart that assumption.
3. Our representations will be partial in different ways than traditional texts- despite their multimodality or perhaps because of them? Because our representations will be hyper-linked and audio-visual, in some ways we can create simulations of what happens on-screen - but not the experience of on-screen (the life of the community) - and we must be aware of that.Contemplating the particular multimodal nature of our observations, documentation, and representations (interpretations) can allow us to account for some of the difference.
Whew. So that is pretty abstract. Just to nail this down, here is an action component.
1. As you collect your data (participate in your community), note YOUR context = physical environment, emotional responses, sensations, diversions and so on. A journal with dates/time that correspond to data would be good. Remember that your participation - as a member of your community - is one kind of evidence of how the actions on the bright side of the screen affect what shows up ON the screen.
2. Include inquiries about material-world contexts surrounding specific posts/on-line interactions. If multimodal/sensory ethnography is going to work for us - we need data to do the "connective" work.
3. Write up/describe the modes (abstract interpretive resources=writing, images, sounds, speech, spatial arrangements, colors, etc) + use of media within your field data. => Analyze the layout, images, use of sounds + video in the online spaces/material world spaces you are working with.
4. Start to write up some reflections (analytic memos) about how media/modes influenced your/your participants experience of your community.
I think this is just so cool. Let me know if you need a copy of the article.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
6.26 Tool for assessing web texts
This tool for assessing web texts is from an article in Kairos, written in 2007, but it seems relevant to our work and might give us some ideas for what to keep in mind as we design our chapters.
6.26 Some discussions of composing process for web texts
I've posted a link to The New Work of Composing to the left This text (also by Computers and Composition Digital Press from Utah State), is a collection of digital essays on composing & new media, and while they are not primarily ethnographies, they do include "ethnographic moments" = and more importantly, they open up LOTS of ideas about how we might want to capitalize on what a new media format can do for us, and they present some useful discussion of how new-media composing works. For example, Re-inventing invention presents a collage of new media composing in action, as does the composing narrative that accompanies Mr. Secrets; and Scholarship on the move analyzes the effectiveness of different presentations in multimodal forms, among other things.
So this collection is worth taking a look at!
So this collection is worth taking a look at!
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Plans for next several weeks + summary of where you are
We decided to take a break from whole group meetings for the next couple weeks, and instead, I have scheduled individual meetings where we can talk over data collection methods, references, "arrival stories" + methods writing, anything else you want to talk about.
Below are my very brief (I got too interested in what you were saying) notes on "where you are" + what we might talk about.
Mark
participant => fall-back who should have been first choice
Working on IRB = draft interview questions (awesome) posted on blog
Maybe will have a scheduled talk once a week?
Meeting - when needed
Maria
Kean students=>think about shared character
Little knowledge of e-lit
Coming together to read/write e-lit
talked about talking to participants one by one to get a snapshot of expectations, who they are, what their new lit practices/communities are, etc
Maria 3:30 Monday July
1 CAS 324
Robyn
Made folders passed out to participants
Handed out folders =
maybe was a little overwhelming
People want to talk -
Some impromptu talking right then and there
Ready to start
1:00 Friday at Sally's
Joe
Lurking on the site
Developing strategies
for people to talk to
Talked to = informal buy-in
Screenshots?
Finish questions + figure out how to film interviews
Noon: Wednesday June 26
CAS 324
Sally
working on focus/how to feature the eBook (what it will do + how it will fit into what has been don)
started working on references - made connection to ethnographic methods (set up by Clifford + Marcus = need to include more "history" as ethnography moves forward, check out Blank + Hakken
hope to start drafting proposal (see drafty overview of chapters blog-post => I'm hoping I will be able o use the writing on your blog to create the descriptions of your chapters that are required for the proposal).
I plan to read Ito et al (as an example of the kinds of ethographies that are "out there", to review Clifford and other "theorists" of ethnographic writing, as well as to check out the multimodal ethnographies available in digital journals such as enculturation + Kairos, and in other eBook series.
6.22 Reference site
As discussed at the meeting, we now have a reference google.site. It is the same site where I posted the readings (I just changed the title from "eBook readings" to "eBook readings and references." You were all invited, and the link to the right should work to get you there. If it does not = let me know.
The plan is for each of you to create a page + begin collecting references. Feel free to use anything from my page that fits your study. Have fun!
The plan is for each of you to create a page + begin collecting references. Feel free to use anything from my page that fits your study. Have fun!
6.22 Focus for our collection and what we are doing next
We spent the first part of the meeting talking over the focus for our collection. The "focus" is what we will use to make our separate pieces work together to explore a (new) idea. At this point, I am assuming each chapter will have:
a methodological focus (on how doing ethnography is changed when both "writing" and "culuture" have been transformed by digital technologies),
a content focus (on ethnographic (thick) descriptions of the identities, social practices, social relationships, material circumstances (including interfaces) and cultural formations as experienced by the groups you are studying)
and a focus particular to your study (this focus will emerge as you work through your data = it will be "your point", "what you discover" etc with respect to what you discover as an important feature of your group; for Robyn this focus is looking like it will be gender, for Mark, it may be the nature of feedback practices + affordances, and so on).
Methodological focus. I reviewed what I see as the overall methodological focus, as it emerges from James Clifford and George Marcus re-casting of ethnography as "writing culture" - with the emphasis on writing. By "writing" these ethnographies as multimodal we are opening new ground for ethnography both as a process and as a product. Think about how mediated methods for collecting, analyzing, and representing data are re-casting the idea of "writing" culture. Other researchers have begun to deal with the idea of mediated "culture" - but the idea of online culture as continuous with material world culture (as discussed by Leander) remains an emerging concept.
For your methodological focus, you will write about the mediated nature of:
data collection (for example, in terms of interviews it makes possible doing chat interviews, Skype interviews, or by casually turning on your phone and how this fundamentally changes researcher/participant relationships and the kinds data it is possible to collect; new media also make possible, screen captures, screen casts, informal videos, self-captured videos, participant voice-overs of video they have created, documentation of a networked presence etc)
data analysis - new media make possible various practices for collaboration between researchers and participants, including synchronous review of data for participants who are not in the same place, the use of visual tools, search and counting tools, . . . think about this one some more
data presentation (many of the items listed under data collection and analysis only edited, creatively displayed, annotated, cut & combined, re-mixed versions of the data so that it can make visual, aural or interactive representations of your points).
=> do some writing about your methods. Describe what you will do. Think about how you might capitalize on new media ethnographic pratices = as described in Ito + Leander, and as you invent them as you go along (such as Robyn's informal interviewing with her phone, and her screenshots of the unfolding events of the season) and how the mediated nature of our project opens up new possibilities
Arrival stories. This discussion included talk about the form that ethnographies take, and we talked for a while about the "arrival story" where the author describes first impressions of the culture s/he will study, characterizes/acknowledgeds her pre-conceptions, expectations (before the study), biases, and discusses her/his interest in/connection to the community(why did you choose this group? what is your interest/reason/motivation for studying it?, etc)
=> do some writing for your arrival story. It does not need to be polished. Observe your expectations, now, at the beginning of the project. What do you expect you will find? How do you think of the group? Hit the bases for arrival story - but don't worry about making it a story just yet. Just get the feelings down while you are in process. You can edit them later.
I am going to put up another post to cover our discussion of references and the link to the site.
a methodological focus (on how doing ethnography is changed when both "writing" and "culuture" have been transformed by digital technologies),
a content focus (on ethnographic (thick) descriptions of the identities, social practices, social relationships, material circumstances (including interfaces) and cultural formations as experienced by the groups you are studying)
and a focus particular to your study (this focus will emerge as you work through your data = it will be "your point", "what you discover" etc with respect to what you discover as an important feature of your group; for Robyn this focus is looking like it will be gender, for Mark, it may be the nature of feedback practices + affordances, and so on).
Methodological focus. I reviewed what I see as the overall methodological focus, as it emerges from James Clifford and George Marcus re-casting of ethnography as "writing culture" - with the emphasis on writing. By "writing" these ethnographies as multimodal we are opening new ground for ethnography both as a process and as a product. Think about how mediated methods for collecting, analyzing, and representing data are re-casting the idea of "writing" culture. Other researchers have begun to deal with the idea of mediated "culture" - but the idea of online culture as continuous with material world culture (as discussed by Leander) remains an emerging concept.
For your methodological focus, you will write about the mediated nature of:
data collection (for example, in terms of interviews it makes possible doing chat interviews, Skype interviews, or by casually turning on your phone and how this fundamentally changes researcher/participant relationships and the kinds data it is possible to collect; new media also make possible, screen captures, screen casts, informal videos, self-captured videos, participant voice-overs of video they have created, documentation of a networked presence etc)
data analysis - new media make possible various practices for collaboration between researchers and participants, including synchronous review of data for participants who are not in the same place, the use of visual tools, search and counting tools, . . . think about this one some more
data presentation (many of the items listed under data collection and analysis only edited, creatively displayed, annotated, cut & combined, re-mixed versions of the data so that it can make visual, aural or interactive representations of your points).
=> do some writing about your methods. Describe what you will do. Think about how you might capitalize on new media ethnographic pratices = as described in Ito + Leander, and as you invent them as you go along (such as Robyn's informal interviewing with her phone, and her screenshots of the unfolding events of the season) and how the mediated nature of our project opens up new possibilities
Arrival stories. This discussion included talk about the form that ethnographies take, and we talked for a while about the "arrival story" where the author describes first impressions of the culture s/he will study, characterizes/acknowledgeds her pre-conceptions, expectations (before the study), biases, and discusses her/his interest in/connection to the community(why did you choose this group? what is your interest/reason/motivation for studying it?, etc)
=> do some writing for your arrival story. It does not need to be polished. Observe your expectations, now, at the beginning of the project. What do you expect you will find? How do you think of the group? Hit the bases for arrival story - but don't worry about making it a story just yet. Just get the feelings down while you are in process. You can edit them later.
I am going to put up another post to cover our discussion of references and the link to the site.
Friday, June 21, 2013
6.21 ACLS Digital Innovation Fellowship
I think an ACLS Digital Innovation Fellowship would be a good funding source for our project. It would primarily support a year for me to put together the book, but it could also offer some support for individual chapter authors.
This link states that the competitions is closed, but the deadline for this years applications is listed as Sept. 26, 2013. I will check into that.
This is the description of what proposals are meant to do:
ACLS Digital Innovation Fellowships are intended to support an academic year dedicated to work on a major scholarly project that takes a digital form. Projects may:
For the second point, we will create an eBook to document both our ethnographic findings, and our methods.
We will have to be careful to illustrate that our project is not "purely pedagogical" = but rather that it focuses on extending connective ethnographic methods (describing and illustrating methods for ethnographic study of online cultures), and on presenting some sample products along with an application of those methods.
This link states that the competitions is closed, but the deadline for this years applications is listed as Sept. 26, 2013. I will check into that.
This is the description of what proposals are meant to do:
ACLS Digital Innovation Fellowships are intended to support an academic year dedicated to work on a major scholarly project that takes a digital form. Projects may:
- Address a consequential scholarly question through new research methods, new ways of representing the knowledge produced by research, or both;
- Create new digital research resources;
- Increase the scholarly utility of existing digital resources by developing new means of aggregating, navigating, searching, or analyzing those resources;
- Propose to analyze and reflect upon the new forms of knowledge creation and representation made possible by the digital transformation of scholarship.
For the second point, we will create an eBook to document both our ethnographic findings, and our methods.
We will have to be careful to illustrate that our project is not "purely pedagogical" = but rather that it focuses on extending connective ethnographic methods (describing and illustrating methods for ethnographic study of online cultures), and on presenting some sample products along with an application of those methods.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
6.18 Draft outline for chapters
Check out the new title for my blog.
As usual - when I started work on this project I had no idea what I was doing. As I continued to work on the prospectus for the book = I kept trying on and digging into different ideas for how to pull our various projects together.
In some ways I haven't 'thrown away' the idea we started out with - which was to take a look at the discourses/identities/writing practices in a set of communities associated with mediated writing, and see how they might look when placed next to the D/I/WPs often associated with academic contexts => and then think about:
So here is the first, messy, not finished draft for the chapters of the book.
I. Small
ethnography and the study of digital culture
some chapters that pull together our methodological observations + findings with respect to our focus
So now I am going to go back to reading some of the books I am going to have to write about to describe how our book fits in.
As usual - when I started work on this project I had no idea what I was doing. As I continued to work on the prospectus for the book = I kept trying on and digging into different ideas for how to pull our various projects together.
In some ways I haven't 'thrown away' the idea we started out with - which was to take a look at the discourses/identities/writing practices in a set of communities associated with mediated writing, and see how they might look when placed next to the D/I/WPs often associated with academic contexts => and then think about:
- what D/I/WPs might be evoked in what kinds of classroom contexts
- what writing/feelings/classroom participation might look like when cast through those D/I/WPs
- how/whether teachers can benefit from a heads up in terms of what kinds of D/I/WPs come into their classrooms from different writing communities
- and so on
So here is the first, messy, not finished draft for the chapters of the book.
Title: First-person
ethnography, small research, and the study of discourses surrounding the screen
Introduction:
Discuss the book’s
focus, audience, & purpose, + how to read it & provide an overview of the chapters
1.
Being
there in a digital age
·
The idea
of perspective in ethnography => watching +writing as central to ethnography
(Clifford & Marcus)
·
idea
of studying “cutures” (conceiving the object of study as separate from the culture
that examines them= move to connective ethnograhy)
·
changing
conceptions of writing accompanying mediated world
·
new
methods for collecting, analyzing and representing data
·
move
toward collaborative composing/multiple perspectives=invisible collaborators
behind the page=> whose perspective? (can be a move back toward the
god-trick)
·
Ethnography,
ethics + intentional, transparent choices about representation (as re-defined
by mediated composing practices + representations)
2.
First-person
ethnography, small research, and the value of local perspectives (methods)
·
Collaborative
nature of mediated projects
·
concepts
of auto-ethnographies, seen through the eyes of a single researcher v
collaborative projects
·
Value of seeing a community through the eyes
of a single observer (triangualtion=> observers life/perspective is part of
what makes the data readable)- use example =Dibbell’s work(representing a
community); Gee’s book on video games
(representing his own work;
·
discussion
of a sampling methods (local participants=local community; local participants=dispersed
communities; dispersed participants=local community; dispersed participants/researchers=dispersed
communities
·
models
for using clusters of ethnographies to examine ideas (as in Selfe, Hawisher
+Berry)=> (compare difference in presentation between Transnational lives ,
Bober & Livinstone, and Geeking out) + discuss the differences
·
translation
of small research to mediated presentations
3.
Using local clusters of first-person
ethnographies to examine ideas: an example
·
Our questions
about discursuve flow-back in mediated participation
·
How we
worked together
II. Discourses surrounding the screen
4.
Fantasy
Sports local-local
5.
Writing
group for e-lit local-local
6.
GPOY
local-dispersed
7.
I F
love science local-dispersed
8.
Fandom
Wing dispersed-dispersed (transformed to
local)
9.
Fanfiction=dispersed-dispersed
10.
NaNoWriMo dispersed=dispersed
11.
Putting
the personal on the page: Classroom blogs in a creative writing class local (? Coming
into being)-local(not sure – because classmates + teacher are felt as
dispersed/other)
III. I haven't thought of a title yet
Friday, June 14, 2013
6.14 Great meeting! & what to do for next week
We had a great meeting today! We pretty much covered the agenda set in the post 6.13. I think we are getting a little more clear about what we are doing and how we will do it. As we said today, I am more than happy (in fact I am expecting) to meet with each of you one on one so you can walk me through your community, show me what have for (or talk about how you plan to collect) data, and plan and scheme about what you want to do for your project. Every time I talk with you it just gets more exciting. Meanwhile, post anything that you are thinking about - anything you want to talk/write about - on your blogs and we will see if we can make some use of one another as a community.
For next week
I would suggest that we read through the Kendall - on interviewing (with a skim through the rant about not using interviews to supplement surveys). Pay attention to the discussion of what interviews can do and think about your design.
At the meeting, we can have a theoretical discussion about what kind of interview you want to do - and maybe spend some time designing/practicing some of our protocols.
In addition to talking about interviewing, I am going to suggest that you work on/think about your focus, begin writing some "analytic memos" (documents where you look at a particular piece of data associated with your community - and write about it in terms of some of the questions from Burn, or a "frame" suggested by Leander. This is exploratory/opening up writing to help you plan/think about your study.
For next week
I would suggest that we read through the Kendall - on interviewing (with a skim through the rant about not using interviews to supplement surveys). Pay attention to the discussion of what interviews can do and think about your design.
At the meeting, we can have a theoretical discussion about what kind of interview you want to do - and maybe spend some time designing/practicing some of our protocols.
In addition to talking about interviewing, I am going to suggest that you work on/think about your focus, begin writing some "analytic memos" (documents where you look at a particular piece of data associated with your community - and write about it in terms of some of the questions from Burn, or a "frame" suggested by Leander. This is exploratory/opening up writing to help you plan/think about your study.
Mediated ethnographic data
Introduction= mini documentary w voiceover = tutorial on site/narration of community
For ethnography of ENG 4017
blog site screen shots
blog site screen shot in sequence with voice-over talking about the unfolding creation of the blog
videos of class with voice over to explain what is going on
video interviews with transcripts
screen shot of texts from class with voice over/transcript to narrate
mini-documentaries by students/student researchers
screen capture of composing for blogs?
links to teaching materials?
E-lit writing group
screen shots of interactions for online conversations
video + transcripts for real-space meetings ( how roles are negotiated)
screenshots of unfolding evolution of the texts being composed => video with voice over
option to move mouse + zoom in on details of text
GPOY
screen capture with zoom-in => to show how people actually interact with website
video of people actually interacting with their site (live) + interview
screen capture of them on Skype - on Tumblr
animated gifs
documentary - video voiceover to introduce site
archival analysis = screen captures
Fantasy Sports
screen shots of message board + twitter activity + manager notes
text message exchanges = screenshot phone
group pictures of league managers, team owners
draft for football = tailgate = realworld video
video = documentation of league managers writing posts
audio of inter = informal + forma *** with discussion of advantages/disadvantages of formal/informal data collection
NaNoWriMo
web site NaNo or Camp + forums + twitter= screenshots
video interviews with camp folks through Skype
mini-documentary
Fanfic feedback system
screen captures of archives + threads of comments that are analyzed
recording (audio or video)
chat transcripts
external links
write-back exchanges=> feedback sessions
something about how responses were coded = video with voice-over with a narrative of the process for analysis
For ethnography of ENG 4017
blog site screen shots
blog site screen shot in sequence with voice-over talking about the unfolding creation of the blog
videos of class with voice over to explain what is going on
video interviews with transcripts
screen shot of texts from class with voice over/transcript to narrate
mini-documentaries by students/student researchers
screen capture of composing for blogs?
links to teaching materials?
E-lit writing group
screen shots of interactions for online conversations
video + transcripts for real-space meetings ( how roles are negotiated)
screenshots of unfolding evolution of the texts being composed => video with voice over
option to move mouse + zoom in on details of text
GPOY
screen capture with zoom-in => to show how people actually interact with website
video of people actually interacting with their site (live) + interview
screen capture of them on Skype - on Tumblr
animated gifs
documentary - video voiceover to introduce site
archival analysis = screen captures
Fantasy Sports
screen shots of message board + twitter activity + manager notes
text message exchanges = screenshot phone
group pictures of league managers, team owners
draft for football = tailgate = realworld video
video = documentation of league managers writing posts
audio of inter = informal + forma *** with discussion of advantages/disadvantages of formal/informal data collection
NaNoWriMo
web site NaNo or Camp + forums + twitter= screenshots
video interviews with camp folks through Skype
mini-documentary
Fanfic feedback system
screen captures of archives + threads of comments that are analyzed
recording (audio or video)
chat transcripts
external links
write-back exchanges=> feedback sessions
something about how responses were coded = video with voice-over with a narrative of the process for analysis
6.14 questions to ask/what to notice in the analysis of multimodal texts
1. Discourses: what discourses are associated with this community that uses the text?
In Burn's analysis of Rebellion he identified expert gamer, horror, proto-critical, ludic, and proto-designer.
2. Design & production: describe representation + ludic elements of the text
-representation
what has been designed? = what processes of signification are in play? what social meaning do the dsign & process convey?
what notion of creativity or rhetorical process is embodied in the text? what are the evaluative discourses + social processes for/structures embodying negotiating what is valuable & valued?
how does this text effect transformation of meanings (how signs are re-purposed/used) in terms of this community?
4. Describe the levels of interaction within the text?
5. describe the organization within the text? what are the routes of play? what kinds of cohesion does it create & how does it create them?
[In Burn's analysis he points out that games produce cohesion through reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.
He further identifies
- ties between modes in terms of verbal signs, visual elements + player actions
-multimodal ties between segments (allusions to other levels)
-redundancy
In Burn's analysis of Rebellion he identified expert gamer, horror, proto-critical, ludic, and proto-designer.
2. Design & production: describe representation + ludic elements of the text
-representation
- visual
- felt
- structural
- modal
- what the text does
- what the user does
- what interactions do
what has been designed? = what processes of signification are in play? what social meaning do the dsign & process convey?
what notion of creativity or rhetorical process is embodied in the text? what are the evaluative discourses + social processes for/structures embodying negotiating what is valuable & valued?
how does this text effect transformation of meanings (how signs are re-purposed/used) in terms of this community?
4. Describe the levels of interaction within the text?
5. describe the organization within the text? what are the routes of play? what kinds of cohesion does it create & how does it create them?
[In Burn's analysis he points out that games produce cohesion through reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.
He further identifies
- ties between modes in terms of verbal signs, visual elements + player actions
-multimodal ties between segments (allusions to other levels)
-redundancy
6.14 methods/strategies for creating connective ethnographies
Notes on methods summarized by Leander
The following partial representation of Leander's overview of approaches to connective ethnography can serve as a quick list of how to frame data, and what in particular to notice about data. I strongly collecting data through several of these perspectives as a way to arrive at a perspective that (eventually) will grow out of the nature of your questions and data.
Hine: Internet as culture AND as artifact; "Internet as socially constructed, indeterminate, and distributed
=>notice correlations among practices, representations, and circumstances of use
=>notice circulation practices
Wakeford: focus on material, symbolic, imagined, and performed spaces
=>attention to connections between technical & performed
Holloway & Valentine: framing of Internet practices/culture/etc so as not to bracket as "separate" from material world
=>notice factors shaping the realization of techno-literate status (how it is influenced by context, individual identity, etc)
=> discursive contstruction of "Internet"
Lam: cross-sectional analyses comparing practices across participants and contexts + attention to ethics (inclusion of non-voluntary participants)
Jones: relationship of online/offlione practices in time and space
=>notice language in context
=> larger, general "life" as feature of "hanging-out"
=>event complex surrounding computer + patterns of online/offline flow
Wilson: political activism
identifies networks, interviews participants, + participant observationof evens
=> notices people, information, $$$, media in terms of flows & circuits
Leander: literacy in relation to space-time + new methods for research
=> notices coordination of talk, bodies & materials
=> attention to labeling practices = by what they DO, characterized in terms of language & purpose
The following partial representation of Leander's overview of approaches to connective ethnography can serve as a quick list of how to frame data, and what in particular to notice about data. I strongly collecting data through several of these perspectives as a way to arrive at a perspective that (eventually) will grow out of the nature of your questions and data.
Hine: Internet as culture AND as artifact; "Internet as socially constructed, indeterminate, and distributed
=>notice correlations among practices, representations, and circumstances of use
=>notice circulation practices
Wakeford: focus on material, symbolic, imagined, and performed spaces
=>attention to connections between technical & performed
Holloway & Valentine: framing of Internet practices/culture/etc so as not to bracket as "separate" from material world
=>notice factors shaping the realization of techno-literate status (how it is influenced by context, individual identity, etc)
=> discursive contstruction of "Internet"
Lam: cross-sectional analyses comparing practices across participants and contexts + attention to ethics (inclusion of non-voluntary participants)
Jones: relationship of online/offlione practices in time and space
=>notice language in context
=> larger, general "life" as feature of "hanging-out"
=>event complex surrounding computer + patterns of online/offline flow
Wilson: political activism
identifies networks, interviews participants, + participant observationof evens
=> notices people, information, $$$, media in terms of flows & circuits
Leander: literacy in relation to space-time + new methods for research
=> notices coordination of talk, bodies & materials
=> attention to labeling practices = by what they DO, characterized in terms of language & purpose
Thursday, June 13, 2013
6.13 Plan for Friday 6.14
At our last meeting back in May we talked about moving forward with some readings on methods - and the following week we set up the google.sites readings (to the right, by invitation only so you have to be signed in to access the link).
Friday. I am hoping to finish at/before 3:00 (though if any of you want to set up some time to work one-on-one on your project, I could do up until about 5). The plan is to touch on the following:
Part I
1. Check in on what we see as the focus for the book (my post is drafty writing - I am still in process on this - but it puts forward some writing) and how your work will fit in. I am thinking that it might also be an example of mediated ethnography - as well as an illustration of how a mediated ethnography can explore questions about online communities in new ways (where our question would be about ideologies/discourses that underlie/shape/are shaped by community practices).
2. Talk over what the computers and writing folks suggested in terms of working on our project.
3. As a follow-up on 1, look at the content-template, develop our list of how we want to use media in our ethnographic documentation, and maybe do some preliminary work on a media template.
Part 2
1. Talk about Leander's ideas about connective ethnography. We will focus on figuring out + making lists of data collection methods/theories that allow you to do ethnography that does not a priori ghetto-ize online identities, practices, and communities from material world life.
2. Use Burn's critical lenses to analyze a new media document (a course site with connected blogs for students).
4. Talk about what to think about in Kendall's essay on interviewing.
Friday. I am hoping to finish at/before 3:00 (though if any of you want to set up some time to work one-on-one on your project, I could do up until about 5). The plan is to touch on the following:
Part I
1. Check in on what we see as the focus for the book (my post is drafty writing - I am still in process on this - but it puts forward some writing) and how your work will fit in. I am thinking that it might also be an example of mediated ethnography - as well as an illustration of how a mediated ethnography can explore questions about online communities in new ways (where our question would be about ideologies/discourses that underlie/shape/are shaped by community practices).
2. Talk over what the computers and writing folks suggested in terms of working on our project.
3. As a follow-up on 1, look at the content-template, develop our list of how we want to use media in our ethnographic documentation, and maybe do some preliminary work on a media template.
Part 2
1. Talk about Leander's ideas about connective ethnography. We will focus on figuring out + making lists of data collection methods/theories that allow you to do ethnography that does not a priori ghetto-ize online identities, practices, and communities from material world life.
2. Use Burn's critical lenses to analyze a new media document (a course site with connected blogs for students).
- modification of Kress & Leeuwen's four strata: discourse, design, production, distribution + interpretation.
- analysis of semiotic metafunctions: representations of the world; communications among producer, texts, and audiences; organization as a process of composition that ensures coherence
- modes of representation (+ what is represented) = how design/written/spoken language is use to impart information, give instruction, construct dialog, create coherence
4. Talk about what to think about in Kendall's essay on interviewing.
Monday, June 10, 2013
6.10 Rebellion
Just in case we don't have time for in-depth discussion of this essay on Friday, here is a kind of summary of what I was thinking we could use it for.
While the essay presents an in-depth analysis of a particular multimodal text (and the social structures that surround that text), for our purposes what is most important is Burn's review of theory, and his practices for applying that theory in his analysis.
The essay emphasizes the usefulness of approaches rooted in social semiotics (cultural studies orientations) and attention to multimodality. The introduction presents 3particular approaches (153-54):
Burn use these all three of these approaches to describe what is going on in the composing process/product in his study. Reading his application of these tools for analyzing/describing/interpreting multimodal texts can provide us with questions to ask about the communities we are studying.
As I read, I found myself reflecting several of his discussions. In particular I was interested in:
If you have questions - or anything you want to touch on re this essay, maybe post it as a comment here or on your blog so we can have some time to think about your ideas before we meet.
While the essay presents an in-depth analysis of a particular multimodal text (and the social structures that surround that text), for our purposes what is most important is Burn's review of theory, and his practices for applying that theory in his analysis.
The essay emphasizes the usefulness of approaches rooted in social semiotics (cultural studies orientations) and attention to multimodality. The introduction presents 3particular approaches (153-54):
- Kress & Van Leeuwen's approach which attends to "four strata" ( discourse, design, production, distribution => which Burn supplements with interpretation);
- using semiotic metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions) - articulated by K &VL presentational, orientational, and organizational;
- and focus on the analysis of modes (both in the sense of the text's design AT the interface = multimodal, and in the sense of the hypertextual nature of the text, with multiple levels/modes for designer control see 161-62).
Burn use these all three of these approaches to describe what is going on in the composing process/product in his study. Reading his application of these tools for analyzing/describing/interpreting multimodal texts can provide us with questions to ask about the communities we are studying.
As I read, I found myself reflecting several of his discussions. In particular I was interested in:
- his discussion of ideology. Both the notion that the "static structures of ideology" are less mobile and more deterministic than the competing discourses that compose it; and the idea that "one can only be on the receiving end of an ideology. While I can enter into definitions of ideology that make this true, I am interested in deconstructing the idea of ideology, much the way "academic discourse" has been taken apart - since after all, if everyone conceives of a concept/belief set differently => what exactly is the unifying principle that puts us on the receiving end? I realize this is not fully worked out and would like to talk about it. How are we going define ideology? What do we want to do with it? Who should we read to develop a more informed discussion?
- the definition of discourse he invoked = "knowledge of (some aspect of) reality" => which seems to place this study outside social constructionism in ways that we should take not of.
- what it means for texts to be multimodal (mentioned above)
- how meanings emerge through "connotation" 163
- discussion of the usefulness of semiotic analysis 165
If you have questions - or anything you want to touch on re this essay, maybe post it as a comment here or on your blog so we can have some time to think about your ideas before we meet.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
6.8 Design planning
In my talk with Chris Blair, Michele Sidler, and Paul Muhlhauser at the e-publishing workshop, about our project,
They suggested that we work on the following.
1. Finding an overall focus for the collection
=> in this discussion I put forward a focus on ideologies (the traditional ethnographic focus on identifying belief structures/systems as envisioned by the participants in that community) with an emphasis on looking at dynamic, contextual ideologies (the way they fragment & cohere) as in individuals (differentially) positions him/herself in material-world/mediated contexts. In the back of my head, I am also thinking that we are going to want to document - though not necessarily in your chapters - our practices for "doing" connective, mediated ethnographies (e-texts).
2. Creating a content template.
List of points/moves each ethnography will hit and how it will connect back to the focus (see post 6.3 Overall shape of the book (writing so far)
3. Creating a media template.
Menu of media representatios that should/could appear in each section for the content template.
We actually started working on this at our last meeting in terms of identifying the different approaches we will take to documenting our communities (see 5.27 post = mediated features). I am hoping that at our next meeting we can have some more in-depth discussion of this list. I got the following advice.
We should talk through processes for this planning = especially a it bears on data collection at our next meeting - what do you think?
They suggested that we work on the following.
1. Finding an overall focus for the collection
=> in this discussion I put forward a focus on ideologies (the traditional ethnographic focus on identifying belief structures/systems as envisioned by the participants in that community) with an emphasis on looking at dynamic, contextual ideologies (the way they fragment & cohere) as in individuals (differentially) positions him/herself in material-world/mediated contexts. In the back of my head, I am also thinking that we are going to want to document - though not necessarily in your chapters - our practices for "doing" connective, mediated ethnographies (e-texts).
2. Creating a content template.
List of points/moves each ethnography will hit and how it will connect back to the focus (see post 6.3 Overall shape of the book (writing so far)
3. Creating a media template.
Menu of media representatios that should/could appear in each section for the content template.
We actually started working on this at our last meeting in terms of identifying the different approaches we will take to documenting our communities (see 5.27 post = mediated features). I am hoping that at our next meeting we can have some more in-depth discussion of this list. I got the following advice.
- take LOTS of screenshots (with methods/apps that have as high-resolution as possible) => they can be assembled as a kind of stop action video
- whenever possible = do video interviews
- check out hootsuite to archive tweets
- archive the sites you are documenting! Link to the archive through your ethnography
- embed a livefeed so readers can look forward as well as back
- mediated data will need transcripts, alt tags etc
We should talk through processes for this planning = especially a it bears on data collection at our next meeting - what do you think?
Thursday, June 6, 2013
6.6 Online publishing workshop
Publishers of digital texts who are here
General recommendations:
Think about design first
Compose in your design
Contact your editor early
Pay attention to directory structure + file naming conventions and extensions
Proofread your code
Technology expectations
depends on what you are trying to accomplish
technology expectations are often publication specificdepends on what you are trying to accomplish
Access to programs you need
Dreamweaver (or programs you want) may be on machines in some department on your campus) => look around your campus
Use free trials
Schools have computer labs + people who know how to use them
collaborations are good
Editors can help direct you to the right program =>e.g. video conversion tools => network! (because that knowledge is out there)
Coding
you can “work around” = use combination of html editor + looking at code
Take courses to learn code?
What about code academy? OK=> but should use it with a project in mind
What about code academy? OK=> but should use it with a project in mind
ruby?
Look at code checkers
Wave => can send your site through to check for accessibility issues
videos need transcripts
Check out standards published on journals (Kairos has standards for code)
Proofread your code
You need to have a basic literacy in code
Metadata is important (Cheryl)
Uses of images
For works that analyze images => high resolution photographs important = use of images
enculturation illustration = an ethnography of game design
screen capture of motion online (of e-lit => in Blackbird)
videos need transcripts
images need rhet alt tags
Programs people use (or not):
imovie (not so good)
photoshop
Dreamweaver
Wordpress Ok (not proprietary templates)
Don’t write something in word and click save as html
Don’t use Wix
Any system you use needs to be archivable
Journals need archivable copies for all elements in your essay
Sound quality is important FROM THE BEGINNING.
Make sure you have the sound set at a level that will work (especially check sound for videos)
Ways to make sound better:
Blanket over your head in a closet
Sound studio
Ask a linguist
high-end recorder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)