Michael commented on Teaching@DigitalCultures (David Yeats) – ‘Micro-netnographic artefact: Community pushing through the cracks‘

Micro-netnographic artefact: Community pushing through the cracks

Michael Wolfindale:

Fantastic artefact, David – I love the way you have presented your xMOOC findings through an xMOOC! The way you have systematically laid out the components of self-determination theory is really clear, but also has the additional layer of us experiencing the highly structured nature of your xMOOC (which you note in your commentary). Also, the ability for us to comment on questions on those different aspects is a great touch – both having the “feeling” of a structured discussion forum, but also allowing us in a way to co-create the artefact! In that sense, it is not a static work and in theory could be co-created with not only your peers (us!) but the participants themselves (if they were to find their way back to your blog/artefact). This all speaks to the entanglements I found during my own micro-ethnography between researcher and site of research (although arguably such a dualism may be problematic).

I particularly like the use of audio too, which not only allows us to read the commentary while simultaneously listening to (and “soaking in”) the participant comments, but also in a way tells a story (having experienced lots of audio stories on the ds106 radio)!

There are some brilliant ideas and observations here. The way you have contrasted your xMOOC, superimposing its rigid notion of “virtual community”, with the connectivist approach is particularly interesting for me having looked at a connectivist-informed course/community (where the connections/communities were rich and complex). The idea of a “community pushing through the cracks” – where the community is “still there” somewhere – is perhaps relevant as we move onto our algorithmic cultures block. What connections/community may have been present that you were unable to identify in your xMOOC, and should this even be tracked? In contrast to the connectivist-informed ds106 approach, where the ‘public’ data available is vast, what are the ethical concerns here? What issues of surveillance does this raise, and what precautions should researchers take to protect those in the ‘public domain’ (who may not realise the implications)?

Thanks for a great artefact – so much food for thought!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *