Blog 4

Introduction:
1) "For Ronnie, social network sites are intricately woven into the tapestry of his daily literacy practices; they play a large role in how he interacts with others in his personal and professional life as well as how he presents himself to different audiences" (9-10).

The way that Buck introduces Ronnie's use of social media in this introductory paragraph is pretty well-done. I felt like I was given enough information about Ronnie's social media presence that, even though I was never looking through his profiles, I was able to understand his tendencies more accurately, and be able to draw similar conclusions as Buck. This quote in particular begs the question (when considering my own paper) the ways in which my subject is using social media - is he intricately weaving his usage of social media into the tapestries of his own daily practices? Or is he rarely using the social media, which signifies a different component of his identity as well as his intended purpose of social media?

2)  "I approached this case study with three research questions..." (10)

Okay, so this quote isn't necessarily the most insightful in Buck's text. BUT, for me, it is a great reminder, as well as a model, as to how I should be approaching the potential professionalism within my paper. Having a deliberate and established framework will not only help my paper with its structure, but will also allow my readers to be able to follow the sequence more efficiently.


Methods:
1) Not a quotation, but a means of organization: Buck organizes the data collection into four sections - Research Interviews, Online Texts, Time-Use Diary, and Profile Tour.

By segmenting the data collections into individual categories, the information is kept organized. Also, for me, this would ensure the relevancy of each form of data collection... Do I really need to include the quantitative data if I don't have any conclusions to be drawn from it? The relevancy of each category should be considered in this type of structured organization, I think, to keep me on track.

2) "The information discussed in the profile tour gave me an overall sense of how Ronnie perceived his own identity representation online..." (13)

First of all, this is a great way to think of the profile tour. Not only is it operating as a visual aid to supplement the paper, but it also gives us a perspective outside of our own. Additionally, I think the questions I ask in the interview can be created with consideration of how the profile tour may operate - as in, should I ask Carson questions about his own perception of himself?

Results:
1) "Scholars have viewed individual identity as embedded in particular contexts and based in individual performance within certain social constraints" (14).

I think that this is a really way to incorporate scholarship into the paper. First of all, I am currently in a rut because I haven't included any scholarship, and feel that my findings and conclusions lack any sort of validity because of this. An introduction such as this, separate (technically) from my own research, is a great way to introduce my findings by creating some sort of validation (hopefully).

2) "Though the content was wide-ranging, Ronnie's use of Twitter was constant, and he was always connecting to someone through the site. Through Twitter, Ronnie presented himself as a connected techie,a  social college student, and a music fan" (16).

I really like the way that Buck phrased this part of the Results section. It isn't too elaborate or wordy, or trying too hard to be "conclusive." Simply, it seems like a stating of the facts - the conclusions that Buck has drawn on Ronnie's identity are real, tangible identities that you could draw if you met Ronnie in real life - and I think that is an interesting way to consider our identities through social media.

Discussion:
1) "Over the course of the study, Ronnie began to have serious concerns about privacy and ownership of his information on Facebook..." (31)

I didn't include the entire paragraph because it would be incredibly long, but I think that this is a great moment within the discussion because it connects Ronnie's usage of social media to the interview - something that is done seamlessly, while providing a closer look at the ways in which Ronnie is interacting with social media itself.

2) "Facebook, for example, has a public comment period when the company changes the site's privacy policies...It is unclear, however, how many users read these policies..." (34)

This portion of the discussion (near the very end) is incredibly important for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is introducing a current and real discussion into the context of Buck's research - something that adds relevancy (I am obviously very fixated on the idea of relevance in this particular paper). Secondly, just a few paragraphs before, Ronnie's concerns about the privacy policy of Facebook was expressed. Continuing this conversation throughout the paper through additional research is a great way to add content that has meaning.

Conclusion:
1) "Ronnie's everyday literacy practices are embedded within an ecology of practice that is shaped by social and technological influences on his writing and his self-presentation on social network sites" (35).

Truthfully, I just think this is a really well-worded sentence, and a great way to "conclude" within a conclusion. I'm adding it as a model for my own reference.

2) "Viewing social network sites as part of larger systems of literate activity can be a productive way to trace their influence on individuals' literate lives. As people participate in social network sites, they encounter important questions about data management and ownership, privacy, and identity representation" (35).

I think that thinking about this project outside of just an individual subject gives it some weight and merit - it's interesting to think about.

Questions for the Interview:

1. Do you see your use of social media (twitter) as a method of self-branding? If so, what kind of brand are you intending to promote through your tweets?
2. What aspects of your profile design (twitter picture, cover photo, biography) were intentional in establishing your online presence? (Why did you make these choices?)
3. When you tweet, are you tweeting for yourself, or with a particular audience in mind? Both, perhaps?
4. Do you carry any concerns on your follower count? Why or why not?
5. If you could change one thing about your social media presence on twitter, what would it be?
6. Is there an ideal amount of favorites you would like to receive on your average tweet? What is it?
7. What qualifies as a "good" tweet to you?
8. What sort of thoughts inspire your texts that go into your social media presence?
9. You use a lot of "twitter" inspired humor in your tweets (I would need to define this - but from my social media use, there is a definite difference in the way we utilize humor online versus in real life) - Do you find yourself ever taking this humor outside of the twittersphere, and into your everyday life?
10. What aspects of a tweet need to be present in order for you to feel compelled to retweet?
11. How frequently do you change the aspects of your profile design (twitter picture, cover photo, biography), and why do you change them?
12. Do you occasionally find yourself laughing at your own tweets?
13. How frequently, if ever, do you subtweet? What constitutes as the grounds for a subtweet?
14. When you are deciding who to follow/unfollow (creating your community!), what makes an account worthy or unworthy of a follow?

I found these articles to be quite fascinating as well as informative for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I have always considered the concept of "hashtag activism" to get a bad rap - I was genuinely thrilled to read Gooden's words to define hashtag activism as a way to sustain engagement in an important discussion. In that way, I was informed of a new (and to me, better, more concise) way of summing up my own perspective on hashtag activism. I'm usually very intrigued by new words and phrases, so this particular moment stuck out to me.

Secondly, I found the diversity in the authors' voices to be interesting. Jones wrote in such a way that you could tell she was incredibly passionate on her topic - she had developed a positive experience with social media, and was intent on relaying that type of experience to her respective audience. Similarly, Ruddy was passionate about her decision to not "fakebook" - but her intent was not to inspire her audience, but necessarily to communicate a decision that she found to be worth noting in her life. This dialogue, then, is a different type of discourse, and is intended for a different type of community/audience. Finally, the interview with Gooden was more formal, and translated into a spoken text - I'm not sure that this is incredibly relevant to the content regarding social media, but I found that the language Gooden used within the interview contrasted greatly from that of the other two authors.... To me, this is worthy of contemplation and asking myself, as well as you all, "Why is this difference significant?" Or, of course, conversely, "Why is it not?"

The differences in the discourse developing from these authors has a lot to do with the ways in which the authors hope to be perceived by their respective audiences, or who they believe their audiences to be. The levels of formality shift depending on the assumed familiarity with the audience. What I believe to be significant in regards to Harris's writing is when Harris states that "...community can soon become an empty and sentimental world" (Harris 13) - considering the communities that were behind the development of each of the author's writings and experiences, it is interesting to me to wonder the sentimentality of it. Additionally, the communities that the authors are actively participating in and/or creating as a response to their own writings evoke an anticipated sense of sentimentality to me as a reader..... The consideration of "sentiment" makes me curious to wonder this as a member of multiple communities - how do we know when we are inspiring or creating new communities from our actions/work (if we ever do  - this is probably not a given), and if we aren't aware of the creation forming (I assume most people aren't, as I certainly have not been - yet my personal experience does not define another's), does the "sentiment" regarding community even have the chance to exist in the active community, or simply in the reflection of that community? This quote from Harris has truly sparked a somewhat abstract idea for me - I'm not sure how I will continue to mull this over, but it will most likely remain regardless.

On my final note, I think it is fitting to end with Harris's statement that "Community becomes... a kind of stabilizing term, used to give a sense of shared purpose and effort" (14). These discourses wouldn't have existed had there not be a community to act as a stabilizer - and likewise, some communities (such as the audience to a blog) would not have existed had the blog writer not worked from the inspiration of a particular community (the mother writing of her children/family/facebook). Our shared purposes in one community, it seems, can spark a new conversation in another... To me, this is our society's own "sustained engagement" in the discourse of the world.

Hi all! My name is Eden, and I’m a Secondary English Education major. Usually, that is regarded as a fairly boring introduction – and it is. But, in regards to this assignment, and introducing myself as a member of this classroom/writing community, I find it to be fairly substantial. At the framework of my first “Teacher’s College Experience” last semester with my cohort was the idea that “Those who teach writing must be writers themselves.” If I hope to make a meaningful and lasting impact on my future students, the biggest favor I can do for them and my future self is to continually and tirelessly hone my writing skills. My identity as an educator-in-training has tapped into almost every aspect of my life. My journey as an educator has informed my identity as a student, as my development as a writer has impacted my perception of the world around me. I’m passionate about writing – I’ve loved coming into my own as a writer, and am always intrigued in the ways in which I can improve.

My writing has become a means for communicating clearly and explicitly with others – this developed due to my pursuit of professional growth as an educator, and is a fairly new component of my “writing” identity. My writing has also become an extension of myself, whereas I am providing others with a window into who I really am – vital both as an educator to my students, to my colleagues, and to my family and friends. My writing has also been my creative outlet. I find writing to be frustrating, intoxicating, relaxing, dutiful, perilous, joyful, and rewarding – it is from my own writing that I have learned the most about the ways in which I think.

Additionally, I continually surprise myself when I take the time to sit down and write. This often comes across as arrogant – I hope to convey that I don’t mean I surprise myself as in “Wow, I’m so incredibly philosophical and my thoughts could change the ocean tides.” I simply mean that when I feel as if I’m misunderstanding a concept, or stuck in a rut considering a text, taking the time to sit down and blurt out every thought that crosses my mind usually reveals an insightful thought that I otherwise wouldn’t have discovered within myself.

From my reading of Harris, I define community as a central hub that informs and pushes our discourses with the world around us. These particular dialogues that take place within a community that fuel our thinking also shape “what [we] can and will do” (12). The term community is wearisome in that it may be seen as “sentimental,” according to Harris – but it can also be a powerful term, one that indicates a shared purpose and effort. Belonging to a community is something that we, as humans, are ultimately and undeniably drawn to… In this way, our existing in communities is unintentional, which makes it all the more interesting to examine our active roles within our communities, and having the ability to further analyze ourselves. Our participation within a community is most assuredly inevitable – we exist in multiple communities, and as Harris states, we may never fully feel whole to one in particular. But this multi-faceted aspect of our own identities from existing in various communities is what helps to inform our writing, and what shapes us in the end.

Considering my own communities, I would list the following as ones in which I currently exist: family, friends, acquaintances, professional networking, Greek life, educator, student, Husker, woman, significant other, feminist, employee… The list is incredibly long, I’m sure, in the end. As I was writing this, I found it curious that my communities are established through the label of a particular identity – something that has struck me in my academic endeavors is the concept of identity acquisition existing as a recursive and multi-faceted process – quite similar to the belonging to various communities. This isn’t necessarily an “Aha!’ moment, so much as it is a truer understanding of the term community, and the ways in which my understanding of “community” itself has informed my understanding of my own identity as a person and as a writer.