I scanned through Jean dissertation and found out there is a strong relation between her questions and design and that of mine. I have to look at it more closely, but here follow my first notes/ quotes:
- How are the everyday practices of vernacular creativity remediated in new media contexts, and with what implications for cultural participation and cultural citizenship? (…)
- What are the characteristics, affordances and constraints of the new media technologies and platforms that are marketed to and used by ordinary people to produce, distribute and consume creative content?
- In what way do these technologies and platform remediate everyday practices of vernacular creativity?
- Who is using these technologies and platforms, in what contexts, and what uses are being made from them?
- Does the practice of vernacular creativity in new media contexts constitute the practice of cultural citizenship, and if so, in what form, and for whom? (pp. 19-23)
The four subquestions are arrived at by the theoretical insights in chapter 2 and 3, but I put appended them here in order to compare them to my preliminary main question and subquestions:
- How and why does everyday citizenship* manifest itself within a community of practice like the Memory of East?
- How did the concept of everyday citizenship come about, what are its core constituencies and which factors influence it?
- Which groups and processes are constituting the community of practice?
- What and how are the members learning of the separate groups within the community?
- What is the relation between moments of everyday citizenship and what is learned within the community?
- What is the relation between factors like engagement, competence, reflection an safety with the manifestation of everyday citizenship with the community of practice?
- What roles do the neighborhood and the story website play in the manifestation of everyday citizenship within the community?
* Everyday citizenship (Hermes, 2008, among others) is close to Burgess’ cultural citizenship, although I have to scrutinize this more. For now, I note that: ‘good everyday citizenship’ entails participation in conversations in a reflexive, empathetic, respectful and accountable way. And ‘full cultural citizenship’ entails active cultural participation.
If I look at the questions above, I am interested in how participants (in real life: face to face or in digital life: story to story) in these communities interact and what this interaction does with them. I would say that is focused at a micro-level. Burgess seems to operate more on a meso-level, but like I said, I have to look closer into this.
Burgess studies two cases with textual analysis, participant observations and ‘industry analysis’ (subquestion 1, Burgess: social and economic conditions). I am planning about the same. I will probably add interviews and my ‘industry analysis’ is hidden in question number 6. Interestingly enough, I am working on a field analysis which is a zoomed-out version of this question:
- What is the variation among neighborhood story websites when it comes to aspects as initiative, aims, type of stories, affordances, course of the project and links?
I will interweave that in an article together with the theoretical perspectives that one can have on these cases. See e.g. this post with a concept abstract.