<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
>

<channel>
	<title>E-learning and Digital Cultures 2011 s0913192@ed Comments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/wp-content/recent-global-author-comments-feed.php?author=6" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk</link>
	<description>part of the MSc in E-learning at the University of Edinburgh</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:41:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
    			<item>
				<title>Comments on: Posthuman Pedagogy</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/12/08/posthuman-pedagogy/#comment-258</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:41:34 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/12/08/posthuman-pedagogy/#comment-258</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[You highlight some of the significant issues that posthumanism raises for education here Kevin, and some really well chosen video clips.  

'First we must agree on what the definition of a post-human should be'.  

I like part of what you imply in this point, but not sure that we need to *agree*.  For me, agreement seems to imply that the posthuman should be pinned down, quantified, rendered ostensible, made generalisable, and I'm not sure that kind of tactic embraces the mutability and flexibility of the theory.  Where assumptions about the rational and bounded human being are put into question, the posthuman seems to become an act of definition, but definition in the sense of a contextual and temporal specification.   Posthumanism often embraces the idea that the human is performed, in a particular place and in a particular time, rather than being comprised of pre-existing stable foundations.  What I mean here is that we might be able to define the posthuman in practice, but not in principle.  *Agreeing* on a universal definition for posthumanism would seems to create the very foundational assumptions that the theory attempts to destabalise in humanism.   

If we consider the (post)human to be something that is persistently created through action and performance, it can have no foundation.  Furthermore, the act of definition becomes a constant, integral process.  The posthuman *is* the definition.  We might say that the posthuman is 'unknowable' in principle, but 'knowlable' in practice.

In this sense, I think your post highlights some fascinating ways in which the human (and hence the nature of knowledge) is culturally defined.  It is interesting how knowledge is portrayed as quite alien and dangerous in these clips.  In The Matrix, the knowledge associated with flying the helicopter is not only disembodied but transmitted from 'another world'.  The other clips seem to reveal a fear of knowledge, is if it is something that can invade the 'mind'.  Knowledge is viewed with great potential, but also as a significant danger, a view which appears to situate 'knowledge' as a kind of separate substance, upon which the superior 'rational' and 'moralistic' faculties of the mind can act.  Dualisms abound...]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Posthuman Pedagogy</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/11/28/4620/#comment-111</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:42:33 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/11/28/4620/#comment-111</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[The descriptions of language learning here are intriguing Grace.  I like how you describe wider activities than mere learning of linguistic structures, such as virtual tours or city information.  It is interesting to think how language (and language learning) might be a product of experience, place, and culture, rather than the foundation from which these things derive.  

The way you describe technology as altering the boundaries posed by geographical distance is interesting too.  Your ‘total immersion’ becomes mediated by books, CDs, MP3s, and virtual tours, and with a posthuman lens, this seems to highlight the ways that face-to-face interactions might also be mediated, through our own technologies of perception, language, and urban space.]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Posthuman Pedagogy</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/stephaniec/2011/11/27/posthuman-pedagogy/#comment-49</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:41:04 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/stephaniec/2011/11/27/posthuman-pedagogy/#comment-49</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[This is a fascinating technology Steph, and one that definitely questions the boundaries of the individual.  It seems that, in allowing ‘the physician to monitor the patients and remotely alter the function of the device to increase functioning of the heart’, control of the body (previously allocated to the individuals brain stem?) is being ‘outsourced’ to a system that includes the device, and the frontal lobe of a brain in another human body...

Your example also seems to emphasise the informational aspects of posthumanism, where the body-as-information is integrated into the programme of education.  I like how the ‘course’ information changes in response to the corporeal data…who says knowledge can be disembodied?]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Posthuman Pedagogy</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/24/augmented-reality/#comment-171</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:41:39 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/24/augmented-reality/#comment-171</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[I think there is some great potential for augmented reality systems in education, particularly projects which involve mobile devices.  With reference to your initial point about the nature of shared reality, I like the way that AR appears to problematise the distinctions between 'real' and 'virtual', and seems to emphasise the idea that individual perception is a kind of 'meta data' that alters the observable.  I wonder, if you could design an educational augmented reality scenario, what kind of thing do you think you might come up with?  

You may be aware that some of the posthuman literature, particularly Katherine Hayles and Cary Wolfe, discuss autopoiesis, via the systems theory of Maturana and Varela, in relation to posthumanism.  Essentially, autopoiesis defines a closed system which perceives the external world as a kind of metaphor; an 'actual' from a wider horizon of possibility, a particular pattern from noise.  So, wherever there is an 'actual', there is simultaneously a broader potential, and these two coexist.  Autopoiesis might be a way you can further explore the posthuman dimensions of AR.]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Week 9 Summary</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/11/20/week-9-summary/#comment-98</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:39:24 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/11/20/week-9-summary/#comment-98</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Strange, your comments do appear in your lifestream up until November 9th, then stop.  Perhaps an issue with the stream updating...I'll see what can be done.]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: TransHuman</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/11/22/technocalyps-part-i-transhuman/#comment-138</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/11/22/technocalyps-part-i-transhuman/#comment-138</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Interesting post here Kevin, and you highlight the Transhuman themes of disembodiment, scientific progress, emancipation, and…well…what I would consider an obsession with heads.  I think it is fascinating how Transhumanism justifies itself on both religious and scientific terms, as you describe, yet the theological and the positivistic could be considered opposed to one another.  These head-swapping transhuman endeavours seems to be a clear expression of science; justified by the doctrines of progress, human betterment and the quantification of life, yet they are also legitimated by the rules of the Catholic Church.  Fantastic inclusion here of the Pope’s address, which for me, emphasises the Transhuman adherence to an essential ‘life’ that must exist behind the material of the body.  The acknowledgement a ‘soul’ would seem to justify the kinds of experiments described here, as does a privileging of humans over other animals.

All this talk of heads and brains must have some implications for learning, and education.  How do you think the transhuman themes of disembodiment, scientific progress and emancipation-from-the-material play out in education?  If a soul does indeed exist, is it that which learns and not the body?  Is there a difference between learning of the body and that of the mind?  These all sound like fascinating questions to take further.  Great post Kevin!]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Posthuman Pedagogy - Think Like a Robot</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/austint/2011/11/21/posthuman-pedagogy-think-like-a-robot/#comment-231</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/austint/2011/11/21/posthuman-pedagogy-think-like-a-robot/#comment-231</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Great work Austin.  I like how you have posed the ‘artificial’, the ‘animal’ (both contestable terms), and the network as frameworks with which to consider notions of ‘being’ and the nature of knowledge.  I’d certainly like to be part of such a conversation!  

It does, however, get me thinking about objectivity.  To what extent can we really perceive beyond the cultural knowledge and sensory receptors available to us?  I wonder, can we really think *as* a non-human, not just *about* a non-human?  Furthermore, is the project of posthumanism about achieving an objective viewpoint, an anti-human perspective on thought, being or knowledge?]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: 6 Threshold Concept: posthuman #1</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/neilb/2011/11/20/6-threshold-concept-posthuman-1/#comment-97</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:39:39 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/neilb/2011/11/20/6-threshold-concept-posthuman-1/#comment-97</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Really enjoyed this post Neil, and I would definitely agree that the 'posthuman' should not necessarily be thought of as a historically specific era, or a chronological progression from human to posthuman.  Like 'postmodernism', I always think the 'post' is misleading, as it doesn't necessarily just mean 'afterwards'.   

I also liked your proposition that the Spanish culture of the 15th and 16th centuries was one of religion, and thus opposed to scientific the traits of Mayan civilization.  The point in the context of posthumanism is really well made, because what you crucially highlight here is that culture defines a particular sense of what being human is, and this has been (and is) different historically and culturally.  For some being 'human' could mean being subject to an omnipotent higher power, for others perhaps being rational and autonomous, for some being the product of continuing biological evolution.      

Your point is relevant because it is the *cultural* understandings and assumptions of being 'human' that posthumanism often attempts to destabilise (particularly critical posthumanism).  Posthumanism in this sense is a deconstruction; its an attempt to reveal the assumptions inherent in a particular cultural understanding of what being human is for the purposes of critique.  Perhaps it reveals that being 'human' is always a cultural construction, and never a fact...?]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: On the differences between the cyborg and the posthuman</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/on-the-differences-between-the-cyborg-and-the-posthuman/#comment-129</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/on-the-differences-between-the-cyborg-and-the-posthuman/#comment-129</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Perhaps part of the distinction between the cyborg and the posthuman is a type of mind-body problem? 

Indeed.  Steve Fuller suggests the mid-body problem has been replaced by ‘those who, on the one hand, would continue to anchor humanity in our carbon-based bodies or those who, on the other, would leverage humanity into more durable silicon-based containers’ (2011, p3)

Fuller, S. (2011). Humanity 2.0: What it means to be Human, past present and future (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan)]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Block 2 Summary - Virtual Communities</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/11/17/communities/#comment-97</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/11/17/communities/#comment-97</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[I really enjoyed this post Kevin.  You caution towards participative and 'ideal' communities is a really valid point to make I think.  The popularity and general acceptance of social constructivist theory, particularly in education, combined with the hysteria of 'web 2.0' technology and the supposed interaction that it affords, has created a general acceptance that communication, openness and sociability are the only things that are important in knowledge production.  This part of your post got me thinking about how that act of 'connecting' is not enough in isolation.  It is notable the number of times I come across discussions that focus on community formation, how to get people connected, yet assume that once this happens the job is done; as if useful knowledge production is automatic once people are connected. 

I think you raise some intricate considerations of community here, and I would say that your critical stance is certainly warranted where these discussions of community, agency and participation are given a lot of emphasis.  Is boiling everything down to 'lurker',  'insider' or 'newbie' really enough?  The dissatisfaction with established notions of community that I sense in your post here gets me thinking about how we should perhaps be rethinking a lot of this stuff.  Haven't we always been connected anyway – in a posthuman sense of interdependence?  Surely looking at communities (simply people that we interact with) is rather superficial way of understanding the broader processes and flows in which we operate?  It is perhaps the less obvious, invisible, connections between people, systems and non-humans that may be more important in understanding knowledge production.  Stimulating stuff, thanks Kevin!]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Ethnography...</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/11/15/ethnography/#comment-96</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/11/15/ethnography/#comment-96</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[I liked the ways in which you used Prezi here Kevin, to focus in on particular elements, and to link images and ideas.  There were some nice instances of this, particularly when you emphasised the image of the globe next to the Cayman News Service logo – an image oriented to have the islands in the centre, yet still referencing the rest of the world – mirrored in the movement between images in your first few slides, which was a great visual way to communicate the community/world question you discuss.  

I thought it was fascinating to bring in some definitions of 'citizen', and relate that idea about active and responsible participation to notions of community.  It struck me that many of the definitions of community participation found in the digital literature seem to tend towards a more passive, loose and accommodating definition.  The anonymity afforded by the digital seems to be the antithesis of accountability – and you highlight this really well.  Is the responsible and accountable citizen an ideal to which community members must strive, or a basic requirement?  Does a community require a certain number of accountable 'citizens' to function and be recognised?  How do the constitutive roles with communities vary according to cultural context?  These seem like very interesting questions to me, thanks.

Overall I thought the use of movement with Prezi was excellent here, and really got me thinking about how a narrative can be accommodated through gesture.]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Posthuman - Connected</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/austint/2011/11/08/posthuman-connected/#comment-151</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:49:18 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/austint/2011/11/08/posthuman-connected/#comment-151</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Excellent points raised here, which I think highlight some of the inconsistencies in the way that the term 'posthuman' is used.  I think the posthumanist literature can be categorised into three (loose!) areas, which I would say differ quite radically in their underlying philosophical implications, and of course their use of the term.  

The 'cyborg/transhuman' strand, in which we might include Haraway's cyborg manifesto, but in which we could certainly include the work of Nick Bostrum and Andy Miah.  I would definitely agree with some of the comments here that the transhuman use of the term 'posthuman' can be very human-centric, emphasising technology use and prosthetics in particular.  

However, there is also a strand which could be called 'critical posthumanism', in which we might include the Edwards reading, and also the work of Neil Badmington.  This area deals primarily with a philosophical approach, such as the deconstruction of 'humanism' – the rethinking of traits such as rationality, autonomy and essentialism.  In this sense, critical posthumanism is certainly attempting to rethink human-centricism, but is also not really about technology at all.  Critical posthumanism is more about rethinking subjectivity by looking again at the ways in which humanistic ideals still permeate much of our 'common sense' thinking.

Thirdly, we might define 'Animal Studies' as another area of posthumanism.  Pedersen's paper might be categorised here, but certainly Cary Wolfe has done a lot of work in this area, and he is behind the posthumanities series.  Donna Haraway's later work on Companion Species might also be included.  This 'field' is precisely about rethinking human-centricism and subjectivity in relation to the environment, and non-human animals.  Again, this posthumanism is not really about technology use per se, but technology might be included in the 'non-human'.

Some suggested readings if of interest:

Badmington, N. (2000). Posthumanism (Basingstoke, Palgrave)

Badmington, N. (2004). Alien Chic: Posthumanism and the Other Within. (Abingdon,
Routledge).

Bostrom, N. (2005). A History of Transhumanist Thought. Journal of Evolution and
Technology. 14 (1).

Haraway, D. (2003) The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People and
Significant Otherness. (Chicago, Prickly Paradigm Press).

Miah, A. (2007). Posthumanism: A Critical History. In Medical Enhancements &
Posthumanity Gordijn, B. & Chadwick, R. (Eds.) (New York: Routledge)

Wolfe, C. (2010a). What is Posthumanism? (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota
Press).

Wolfe, C. (2010b). Posthumanities. Retrieved: 15 July 2011.
http://www.carywolfe.com/post_about.html]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Week 8 Summary</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/11/12/week-8-summary/#comment-59</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/11/12/week-8-summary/#comment-59</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Excellent news on the lifestream Grace!  Its looking great, and the tweaking has certainly paid off.  

I think you would be right to match the content of the lifestream with the weekly topics.  So, for example, this week you might want to include your explorations and research into posthumanism.  The You Tube and Tumblr additions from last week are fantastic in this respect.  As for providing an explanation for including a particular lifestream addition, this would ideally be done in your Weekly Lifestream summary.  Remember that 'rather than reflecting directly on the course content, the purpose of these weekly postings is to synthesise and review the content of your lifestream. It is expected that each will contain references to the links, tweets, blog posts and any other content from that week' (from the course handbook).  

As for more lifestream feeds, as long as you are happy and comfortable with the ones you have, then you should definitely experiment with some others.  It sounds like you have just got a few working recently, so make sure they are working as you'd like them to.  Vimeo is indeed a good feed for videos, and you might want to also try 'Library Thing' for books. 

'And if I had to do a Lifestream again, how differently would I do it?'.  Superb question!  I would definitely ponder that one, and remember it when your final lifestream summary comes around at the end of week 12...]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Summary: Week 8</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/summary-week-8/#comment-89</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:37:23 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/summary-week-8/#comment-89</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Its great to see a discussions of 'cognitive prosthesis' and distributed cognition emerging Daniel.  Where you bring in the example of mobile phones and memory, I was reminded of Viktor Mayer-Schönberger's book 'Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age' (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8981.html), which warns against the excesses of an unrelenting digital memory.

You might also find this paper interesting, which combines a kind of distributed cognition perspective with the posthuman:

Yakhlef, A. (2008). Towards a post-human distributed cognition environment.
Knowledge Management Research and Practice 6. pp. 287-297.

www.esc-pau.fr/documents/cahiers%20recherche%2008/cahier-10-art3.pdf

Your post also reminded me, in some ways, of the 'multimodal' and 'transliteracy' discussions in weeks 3 and 4.  Language, and signification systems in general, are often given much emphasis in discussions of prosthesis, being considered a technology that has radically enhanced our cognitive abilities.  Would you consider language a technology?]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: On the differences between the cyborg and the posthuman</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/on-the-differences-between-the-cyborg-and-the-posthuman/#comment-88</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/on-the-differences-between-the-cyborg-and-the-posthuman/#comment-88</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[You highlight an interesting perspective here Daniel, that prosthetics primarily function to normalise the human, where a human might be perceived to be deficient.  I certainly think there is much in the cyborg and 'transhuman' fantasy that preserves the human as an ideal unitary form, which technology must uphold.  It seems as if prosthetic limbs preserve the *idea* of a 'fully formed human'; the technology allows us to 'correct' what we see as something not fully formed.  What you cleverly highlight here is how the cyborgian idea of prosthesis, whilst attempting to transgress boundaries, often actually serves to maintain the status quo by re-establishing our notions of what the human form *should* be.

For me, the posthuman set outs to trouble what we understood as 'human' in the first place; challenging dualisms such as organic/inorganic, internal/external; question just what the 'us' is.  Where you define 'a closer coupling between the cyborg and its parts', the posthuman perspective would surely say the cyborg *is* its parts, rather than preserving a subjectivity 'behind' the components.  Great post Daniel!]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Micro-ethnography: TheGlobalWe</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/stephaniec/2011/11/10/micro-ethnography-theglobalwe/#comment-17</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:57:10 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/stephaniec/2011/11/10/micro-ethnography-theglobalwe/#comment-17</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[I found the 'entry story' quite interesting here, that the initial interest opened up a much wider, and perhaps for you more interesting, community to study.  It is a nice reminder that when approaching ethnographic research we should perhaps be open and flexible about the subject, rather than having rigid, preconceived ideas about what will be studied.  

I was also interested in the references you made to 'lurking' and undertaking covert research.  This seems to be a delicate ethical issue, and you raised some interesting points.  Although not necessarily applicable to this micro-ethnography, I would certainly be cautious about doing 'undercover' research where the results may be published. But, the wider point is, I think, an epistemological one.  If we consider that a 'lurker' can be *more* objective, we are surely assuming that an individual is capable of perceiving a situation 'exactly as it is'; accessing an external reality.  That stance would appear to ignore the perceptual, social and cultural qualities that might work through the observer, and colour any attempt at 'discovering reality' anyway.  So for me Hine's (2000) claims on striving for objectivity through 'lurking' are post-positivist at best.       

As for whether the public nature of the web is a 'worry free' domain for researchers, I am reminded of Kozinets dilhema (2010) – that web content could be viewed both in terms a 'space', or a 'text', with each implying something quite different.  A space might imply 'public', and any conversations in that space might be considered the same as conversations overheard in public.  However, if the web *page* is considered a text, questions about ownership arise.  If something is written by an individual, do they not have rights to it, despite its 'publication' in public space?  Interesting questions!]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Virtual Ethnography</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/annar/virtual-ethnography/#comment-61</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:20:04 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/annar/virtual-ethnography/#comment-61</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Some really elaborate and thoughtful work here Ania, and I enjoyed exploring it.  I was interested in your reference to trust, and the development of further affiliations between group members.  It seems this would be a really interesting element to try and map – how initial connections in Twitter, such as replies or retweets, might lead to extended commenting and communication in other sites, and the time scale involved in such transitions.  As Austin suggests, I find it interesting to think of Twitter, in the very open and exposed way you describe it, as a gateway to further, perhaps more sustained, forms of community interaction (whether online or off).  Yet, for its chaos and public disclosure, the Twitter stream seems integral to the community.  Despite the intimacy and bonding that goes in in communities, perhaps the need for distance, brevity, and the 'safety' of the public sphere are just as important.]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Ethnography</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/11/04/ethnography/#comment-47</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:05:45 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/11/04/ethnography/#comment-47</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[I like the way you have structured some of this around research questions, it can really help to structure and focus subsequent research writing, as well as making it clear for the reader what you are trying to achieve.  

I also like how you have specified conventions in communication as a factor that portrays community.  The ‘voice of reason’ would indeed seem an appropriate mode of communication for scientists!  Kozinets (2010) mentions ‘interactional formats’, rituals and customs, but also a shared language in the definitions of community and culture.  Like others have commented with regards to the different ‘sites’ you have looked at, it seems as if the language (identity?) defines the community more than one particular ‘space’.  This seems particularly interesting when a lot of the actual material featured in your prezi was ‘social’ rather than ‘scientific’, as Austin highlighted.  Does a kind of reasoned language permeate all discussions I wonder?  

Looking at the scientific community has got me thinking about ‘paradigms’, and the specific scientific use of the term, and I wonder whether it is useful to use the analogy with communities.  Communities might be said to work within the boundaries of a shared theoretical foundation (as scientists might work with Newtonian physics), where exploration and conflict are fine, as long as the theoretical foundation within which they operate is not challenged.  I suppose the difference might be the explicit nature of scientific theory, whereas communities may not acknowledge, be conscious of, or actually discuss the fundamental ideas that they share…

Your analysis of the support is interesting, and I wonder how community assistance might relate to levels of participation, from newbie to insider.  Community status would seem to be an interesting angle from which to look at this group, particularly as you mentioned how members describe themselves and their field work.]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Mini Digital Ethnographic Study: Diaspora</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/03/mini-digital-ethnographic-study-diaspora/#comment-71</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/03/mini-digital-ethnographic-study-diaspora/#comment-71</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[This is a really detailed study Daniel, and I find the ideas behind the Diaspora community fascinating, particularly the idea of an undercurrent social movement.  As Neil notes, I think it would be really interesting to conduct a discourse analysis type study, especially on some of the videos, and within the discussions.  Lots of fascinating links to follow here, particularly Moglens, thanks.  And a super visual aspect to the arrival story, the idea of 'steps' that you describe works brilliantly with a slideshow.  

On the Facebook stuff, some MSc people might have caught Norm Friesen's excellent talk last year on this paper: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3149/2718]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Mini Ethnography Assignment</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/neilb/2011/11/03/mini-ethnography-assignment/#comment-43</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/neilb/2011/11/03/mini-ethnography-assignment/#comment-43</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Great use of mindmapping software here, and I share others enthusiasm for it. I think your metaphor of being more interested in the journey than the destination really works, and suits the ethnographic approach perfectly, especially for this size of study.  The mind map gives a good overview of the extent of the community, and I am thinking how it might be useful for a kind of quantitative study, however, like others I found myself wanting to follow many of the nodes and find out more!]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: GA-MMA Virtual Ethnography</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/austint/2011/10/31/ga-mma-virtual-ethnography/#comment-74</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:36:44 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/austint/2011/10/31/ga-mma-virtual-ethnography/#comment-74</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[I liked the specificity of this group Austin, and your site is an absorbing read!  I found the entry criteria (creating a CGI/3D computer model of a Gerry Anderson related subject) really interesting, as it seems (to me as an outsider) so specific.  It appears to make the initiation into the GA-MMA group very exclusive, and it got me thinking about this idea of the boundary between community and non-community, but also the hierarchical relationships that exist within them (as I think is mentioned in your comments).  This got me thinking about whether communities of interest form around the shared (?) notion of an 'ideal' member; the expert that everybody aspires to be.  To what extent is there a normative force going on in communities (even if slight)?

I really like your combination of quantitative analysis and personal experience as well.  I'm certainly drawn to the idea of individual stories about connecting with people (within communities), particularly over time, and yours seemed very potent indeed.  As always Austin, thought provoking stuff, thanks!]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Mumsnet ethnography</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/carolc/2011/10/29/mumsnet-ethnography/#comment-41</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:56:07 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/carolc/2011/10/29/mumsnet-ethnography/#comment-41</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[This ethnography was fascinating Carol.  I think some of the mumsnet forums would make a great site for a discourse analysis.  Given that some of the research has identified 'white middle class', for example, as the predominant users of the site, I wonder how the specific language used defines what 'type' of person you can be on mumsnet: the kind of discussion that is permitted, and also shunned.  How is 'white middle class' performed as a kind of 'mumsnet identity'?  I also liked the idea that the dadsnet forum might be used by participants as an anonymous place to perform a particular gender. 

Fascinating as well how this community has gone about legitimising itself (and its knowledge about motherhood and femininity) through association (good or bad it doesn't matter!) with politicians and the media.  Also, the question of *how* this kind of site has come to prominence seems very interesting; what does it tells us about what motherhood/class/gender might mean presently?]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Week 5 Lifestream Summary</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/10/26/week-5-lifestream-summar/#comment-32</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/10/26/week-5-lifestream-summar/#comment-32</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[Getting a ‘snapshot’ of a community is a useful analogy Grace, and I think it’s a great way to start thinking about research methods.  I think small studies are a great way to ‘scope out’ a community (I’m doing on at the moment!), and also to think about the ways in which established social science methods might relate to the ‘virtuality’ of the online.

I think answering the question ‘is this group a community?’ is really interesting, and it gets to the core of what I think ‘virtuality’ brings to social science research.  Rather than starting with the idea that you can actually come to understand what is going on in a given social group, I think digital communication forces us to challenge the assumptions of what a ‘community’ is…and that’s surely a good thing!  

Also, as Jen mentioned in a comment earlier, the Twitter ‘fail whale’ page spawned its own ‘community’, discussed in an ethnography last year: http://edc.education.ed.ac.uk/alisonj/2010/11/04/fail-whale-community-ethnography/]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: 5 Ethnography</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/neilb/2011/10/26/5-ethnography/#comment-33</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/neilb/2011/10/26/5-ethnography/#comment-33</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[I like the sensitive approach here, and you raise some pertinent difficulties in the ethnographic approach.  I’m engaging in some participant observation myself at the moment, and enjoyed your take on these issues.  I wonder if we can ever abstract ourselves from our attitudes in this kind of research.  And do we need to?  Is subjectivity a hindrance to research findings?  In a recent discussion with a colleague who tends towards a feminist epistemology in her work, their answer to this dilemma was that subjectivity *enhances* such research, and moreover is itself an indication of rigour.  I rather liked that argument.  Isn’t that also why we enjoy blog postings (such as this one), because the writers context comes across in the writing?       

It also seems to me you highlight the broader implications of ‘research ethics’ in the way you describe some of these dilemmas.  This post reminds me that ethics are not just about ‘anonymising’ participant names, it is about doing *good* research, and being sensitive to our own position within it.]]></description>
			</item>
						<item>
				<title>Comments on: Visual artefact</title>
				<link>http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/10/15/visual-artefact/#comment-29</link>

                <dc:creator>Jeremy Keith Knox</dc:creator>
				<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
                
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/gracee/2011/10/15/visual-artefact/#comment-29</guid>
                <description><![CDATA[I like the idea of the mandala as a kind of map, or representation, of the universe, and this gets me thinking about a kind of visual representation of the digital territory.  It seems like this is what a lot of the visual artefacts are about, mapping the confusions and disorders of technology, and/or the enlightened and progressive.  There is also something about symbolic meaning here, in the glyphs and emblems that signify specific things to those with knowledge of Buddhist teachings.  Much like stain glass windows in the West, I am reminded of historical forms of literacy which question the dominance of printed ‘text’.  

I was also interested in how you structured the images here, and its seemed to reflect a kind of hierarchy, and in a way the cartographic dimension of the mandala.  The larger images at the top seem to represent the more ethereal, while the lower seem to depict more earth-bound practices?]]></description>
			</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
