Reflecting on Karen Barad’s (2003; 2007) agential realism and onto-epistemology, where the “thing” is entangled with the way in which “we” research it, I have found myself questioning how I might research my micro-ethnography and how/whether I should participate (as a ‘lurker‘ or otherwise). How might different kinds of participation affect ‘community’ and the ethical issues surrounding the study?
In my role as ‘open participant‘, having ‘access’ to read/listen/participate in, and feed into, the same activities/assignments as those studying the course through a degree, the binaries between ‘open’/’closed’, ‘insider’/’outsider’, ‘included’/’excluded’ appear blurred and problematic. Is access alone enough to be ‘included’?
Listening to Tim Ingold’s assertion that ‘we don’t make studies of people, we study with them and learn from them’, this week I submitted a radio bumper into the ‘ds106 flow’ alongside the work of students/open participants, with the potential of receiving “airtime” on ds106radio. Is this an example of the kind of entanglement Barad refers to?
Inspired by an article on live field notes, I wrote some field notes of my own, and began focusing my micro-ethnography on ds106radio and the interactions surrounding it…
Great turnout for #ds106radio this evening. I enjoyed the insights and interactions everyone brought to the experience. #ds106
— paul bond (@phb256) February 14, 2020
What makes ‘community’ endure in a connectivist-informed course such as ds106, often beyond the end date (“#4life“)?
Think of all things hyped for education since 2010 that have done the Gartner slide from peak to trough, then witness how https://t.co/zpROCpo5Om is still going strong #ds106 #4life
— Alan Levine (@cogdog) December 13, 2019
How might we define/understand/document ‘community‘? What role might ds106radio, and sound in general, play?