Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Easy matrix for Case Study Analysis #3

Open
jgmac1106 opened this issue Oct 21, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

Easy matrix for Case Study Analysis #3

jgmac1106 opened this issue Oct 21, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@jgmac1106
Copy link
Owner

Given time crunch I am thinking some basic qualitative analysis.

I was thinking of taking Gee's characteristics of an affinity space and use that as a lens to evaluate both #indieweb and #DoOO. Though we may want some criterion on power imbalances as well.

I think we should also add rows for the communication channels used.

@jackjamieson2
Copy link
Collaborator

For this I'll probably follow your lead, but I'm happy to add to the analysis where I can.

I read Gee's chapter about affinity spaces today. For many of my interests, I tend to refer to communities of practice (e.g. questions of membership and legitimate peripheral participation), but I think Gee's characteristics related to knowledge are especially useful here.

Franklin's holistic and prescriptive technologies could be a proxy for power (or at least agency), as they describe divisions of labour between planning and execution. (see my notes in the theoretical perspectives document).

re: Communication channels - I assume this would connect with your note on multiplex learning spaces? I'll have to read what you're thinking here to get my head around that.

@jgmac1106
Copy link
Owner Author

yea, i finished much of the work, as an FYIO affinity spaces s based on communities of practice, Gee just separates into affinities around shared goals rather the geographic distinction or forced community membership;

@jackjamieson2
Copy link
Collaborator

Just reading your updates now - this helps me get a clearer sense of the big picture and I can make some revisions to the power humans/nonhumans sections accordingly.

I'd like to push back slightly on your description of communities of practice as requiring "physically defined communities", since CoP are used to describe many types of remote communities, and Wenger explicitly argues that the concept crosses geographic boundaries (especially re: the Internet).

I think the different approach to membership (i.e. membership is not really relevant to affinity spaces) is a stronger distinction for me. And additionally I think we could argue that emphasising space rather than communities of people can highlight the importance of the Web as an environment for learning.

I'm going to get a bit of writing done this afternoon so I'll push an update once I've made some more progress

@jgmac1106
Copy link
Owner Author

jgmac1106 commented Oct 26, 2018 via email

@jackjamieson2
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks @jgmac1106 — that clears up my confusion! I really like how that emphasizes the role of the technical environment

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants