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.