This week the focus has obviously been very much on my MOOC inquiries, considering the articulation of my research as an artefact, and the process in the stages of the presented report. ‘Netnography- The Movie’ is a fairly light foray, setting out in very simple terms the process of netnography, as contrasted with ethnography research, indicating advantages vs. disadvantages and considering ethical issues, such as disclosure of intention and confidentiality, and anonymity in the collection of data.

The post ‘Reconceptualising fieldwork in a netnography of an online community of English language teachers’: Derya Kulavuz-Onal and Camilla Va´squez (2012) has provided me with valuable insights into how I might conceptualize my own online netnographic piece of research, specifically in terms of the distinction which Kulavuz-Onal and Va´squez make, (‘defining the field’) citing Kozinets (2012, cited p227; Kozinets 2010) between studying the culture of an online environment (in my case a MOOC and Facebook, but it could easily be an MUD such as Second Life) and studying a community itself. They also make the distinction (2012, p228) between a community which is located within one online ‘venue’ and one which is spread over two or more such ‘venues’ (2012), and where there are transparently, in an independent way shared practices, beliefs and attitudes (2012, p228) (possibly aims and motivations- ‘a pre existing shared purpose’ if you will) not defined by a particular site, but which is something (as just mentioned) prior and dynamic, therefore not simply moulded by the architecture of the individual ‘venue’ (2012) (a MOOC in this case) or limited to its (set; series) of activities . This seems highly relevant for my netnography as the community does extend beyond the bounds of the MOOC, or any associated appendages (such as the MOOC Twitter feed), which was however the initial primary field of study.

Very briefly also, the post ‘Facebook: Making Social Connections’: Johnstone, Todd, Chua (2009) was interesting in its focus on Facebook, which is highly relevant to my study, again they cite Kozinets (2009, cited p 234; Kozinets 2002), noting that users of such sites do so to share ideas, build relationships and so actively build communities themselves, rather than simply participating in a community which is predefined, both in its boundaries and purpose. I found their reference to participants ‘lived experiences’ similarly illuminating.

Finally, with a view to the creation my ethnographic artefact, although the context is very different ‘Videography in marketing and consumer research’: Belk and Kozinets (2005), their coining of the phrase ‘visual elicitation’ expresses wonderfully, an aim of my proposed use of video as both a medium and a platform for presentation in terms of my ethnographic artefact, and the section on ‘Video-based data dissemination (post-production and distribution)’ presents good arguments in favour of multi- modality in an academic and research context, but it is this comment which really caught my eye:

 ‘Because those being observed continue to be available over a long period of time in such research, it is possible to use still and video material that has been shot previously in order to conduct visual elicitation by having them respond to watching their earlier behaviors (Heisley and Levy, 1991; Rook, 1991).’ (2012, p129)

I should not go into the detail of this point here, but hopefully its significance will become clear in the context of my ethnographic artefact, when posted, I shall certainly be referring to this comment in the context of that presentation.

Other posts this week are ‘looking back and looking forward’, and require individual comment, which will be coming soon.