Great attempt to start summarizing what was going on in the blogosphere with resepct to research questions. Liz claims that you need to be part of the culture you are researching. Which I’d like to agree since I’m a cultural historian by trade – which was an oxymoron at a certain period of time. But on the other hand research must be open for outsiders as well the astonished vista from or to a distant culture bears a differance. Quality of output doesn’t depend solely on participation in the worlds of the objects/subjects of research. We are constructing the world anyway. But nevertheless the time is nigh to put even more efforts to “write oneself into existence” as researchers.
You might consult my reaction on the Toronto conference.
It’s a pity that Liz can’t attend BlogTalk 2.0.
I’d like to rephrase her post here, it’s, however, a way of learning for me. Liz Lawley is thinking about possible blog research agendas in her post at M2M. Her setup based on the assumption that this research needs to be somehow ethnologically inspired – thus stating that blogs are a (sub)culture with many tribes and else – describes five ares.
-
- As always you need to develop a common language for the object (yes objects their is no way the see them different) of your research: defintion and descriptions. It’s about forms, archetypes, typlogies etc. As some readers might realized over time I spent some efforts to get closer to that.
- Secondly comes the field that deals with the interconnectiony, the clusters that form between blogs.
- comes ethnographic research per se. That means dig into subcultures and figure out the processes and structures, the use of symbols, rituals etc.
- comes the domain of linguistic, literary, and textual research
- blogs as tools within organizational contexts.
No tag for this post.
Comments are closed | Permalink • 
• 
