Blogging

It's been too long since I've done a dissertation post (one week and five days, according to the list of categories on my sidebar), and I'd like to remedy that. So, first, a progress report: Several days ago, I sent out interview questions. The questions were, as you might recall, intended to help contextualize the "where are the women" discussions. Response so far has been better than I expected; I was afraid that no one would be around given that it's summer. At least two people that I know of intend to post about my project (as in, post my questions and their responses). I expected that going into it, and I assumed that some people would post their responses without talking to me first, so I'm telling those who do check with me that it's fine. And it really is fine, to be sure. Of course I do worry a little bit that people with very high Google page ranks will rip my research to shreds and their posts will be right there at the top when folks Google me, but it's a necessary risk. It'll be interesting to see how such a public research process will go.

I've been thinking a lot about process lately. Right now my committee members want me to include, along with my chapters, at least three appendices: a weblog primer, one on my project's implications for composition pedagogy (they're not requiring this one, but they said the pedagogical implications could go in an appendix should I choose to write about them), and one that's a kind of reflexive essay about my doing this project as both a woman and a blogger.

It's that last one I keep getting hung up on. I think I have a chapter's worth of stuff to say about that topic. I hope that will be okay with my committee; my guess is it will. I envision it as a chapter that addresses several issues related to method:

1. A review and critique of methods used in previous qualitative internet research (not all of it, mind you, just the work on gender and computer-mediated communication in which I'm situating my research)
2. An explanation of new methodological challenges presented by studying blogging (e.g. expectations of privacy) and common methods scholars have used to study them so far
3. A definition and justification of my methodological choices (this would include defining a "feminist rhetorical approach" and what I mean when I say "rhetorical criticism" (Cf. Warnick*) and explanation of my purpose in doing interviews
4. An autoethnographic narrative about my experience with blogging (as it pertains to this project -- e.g. why I blog, what it's been like doing my research in public, etc. -- it would also entail writing a blurb about autoethnography)
5. A reflexive examination of my roles as feminist woman, blogger, and researcher studying gender and blogging (this would include issues of situatedness, degree of advocacy, and research ethics).

Feedback is, as always, appreciated. Now for something fun, which will definitely be an appendix in my dissertation: all the little artifacts I'm collecting, like the representations I wrote about recently. Here are some more quiz images, which I haven't had time to write about yet but hope to soon:

Many more below the fold:

Well, actually I've never lived with a cat, but I couldn't help but think of that quotation by Eckhart Tolle when I read this NYT story about all the online shrines to cats (versus those to dogs), including cat blogging. One hypothesis: "Maybe the difference is that dogs are public, everyone's business. They go on subways and they go in parks. They are always caught in flagrante defecato. Cats stay home. They are private, nobody's business. To watch them in their homes is a privilege. They are perfect for the Web, the medium of voyeurs." A corollary: "Those cats [in The Infinite Cat Project] are like so many bloggers sitting at home staring into their computer screens and watching other bloggers blog other bloggers. Cats, who live indoors and love to prowl, are the soul of the blogosphere. Dogs would never blog." Looks like the NYT is leaving no stone unturned when it comes to stories about blogging.

Oh well, at least they're putting good notes up. I'm particularly interested in Political Blogging Grows Up and Flame, Blame & Shame so far. I'll probably update this post as I find more links to add and have more to say about the discussions.

UPDATE: post-Blogher to-do lists.

While doing some digging around in Technorati, I found Weblog Ethics Survey Results, a research project by undergraduate students in the School of Communication and Information at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Andy Koh, Alvin Lim, and Ng Ee Soon surveyed 1,224 bloggers' views of four areas of ethics: "truth telling, accountability, minimizing harm, and attribution." They asked bloggers to categorize their weblogs as personal or non-personal and used those categories to foreground their analysis of the data. From their article:

This study explored ethical beliefs and practices of two distinct groups of bloggers--personal and non-personal--through a worldwide web survey. Over a period of three weeks, 1,224 responses were collected and analysed.

Our findings show that these two groups are distinctively different in demographics, blogging experiences, and habits. We also found that there are significant differences between personal and non-personal bloggers in terms of the ethical beliefs they value and the ethical practices to which they adhere.

Non-personal bloggers are typically older males, with more formal years of education than personal bloggers.

Non-personal bloggers tend to have more readers, update their weblogs more frequently, and spend more time on their weblogs.

Their study is making the rounds, but I would have thought more people would link to it. But it's summer, I guess. Susan Herring made an interesting comment that links the study by Koh, Lim, & Ng to some of the BROG studies. While I think Koh, Lim, & Ng have done some fine work here, I must say I'm a little surprised that Jonathon Delacour's thoughtful essay on weblog ethics, which touches on the fact that some people write fiction or creative nonfiction on their weblogs and that a journalism-based set of ethics is too restrictive for them, isn't cited (especially as it's the #1 Google hit for "weblog ethics").