Thank youfor your elaboration. I am really intrigued by the ethical side of things. I often wonder about this in a general sense in regards to sharing online.
Ian, I like the idea of adding people to lists rather than merely ‘following’ them. I also like the possibility of being able to subscribe to other people’s lists. Personally speaking, I actually follow my lists in my feed reader using Granary to create the feed.
Responding to Ian Guest wonders about the various features associated with Twitter.as a space for sharing,
Perhaps not necessarily ‘lost’ John, but as @claganach implied, decidedly harder to find?
I guess few folks make much use of the ‘archiving’/cataloguing’ features such as Moments & Bookmarks? And Liking of course seems to have been repurposed from Favoriting. 🤔
— Ian Guest (@IaninSheffield) May 6, 2020
One thing I wonder about sharing spaces is not what is technically possible – Twitter actually includes quite a few features to help users, such as hashtags, saved searches, bookmarks and moments to name a few – the question is how easy is it to personally mine this information and subsequently build upon it? This was the point that both Cal Newport and Austin Kleon have recently touched upon, sharing the power of a space of one’s own.
Dr Ian Guest talking about his recent PHD “Exploring teachers’ professional development with Twitter”.
Another interesting discussion about Twitter summarising some of Ian Guest’s learnings associated with his PhD. Was nice to mentioned in regards to my involvement with the village.
Congratulations Dr on the new role. Exciting times!
Massive congratulations once again Ian. I look forward to reading it in its entirety.
Well done. When will it be (digitally) published?
After following your journey Ian, I must admit that this is one book that I am intrigued to dive into.
I would have no idea what questions you would get asked in your viva Ian, but one thing that I was left wondering from yourwas why Twitter and not say Delicious? Did or does Delicious or Diigo support your professional development? Would this simply be a different ‘gathering’ or something different altogether? I am not sure if I have made sense here, but it is just something that has always left me wondering.
A tweet is a busy actor, and is often the point from which further activity begins.
Ian Guest gathers together the actors associated with my (and subsequent tweet) reflecting upon my experiences with EduTweetOz.
The Retweet is a repeater and amplifier, causing the original message to appear and then reappear in Twitter timelines; a nudge here, a prod there. This is more than creating or extending a network of practice or personal learning network, it is networking.
He provides a useful take on some of the human and non-human players involved in Twitter and Twitter Chats, with a particular focus on the place of the hashtag.
Hashtags cooperate with other actors, repeat themselves and become more insistent. In collaborating with other human and nonhuman actors they do work by forging connections and facilitating communication exchanges. Hashtags don’t simply work for teachers in this regard, but work with them, sometimes coaxing, sometimes cajoling and sometimes compelling.
Ian Guest outlines the methodological approach associated with CPDin140. He describes this as ‘gatherings’:
I call these chapters ‘Gatherings,’ drawing on the work of a number of authors, but predominantly Law (2004a: 160), for whom Gathering is:
[…] a metaphor like that of bundling in the broader definition of method assemblage. It connotes the process of bringing together, relating, picking, meeting, building up, or flowing together. It is used to find a way of talking about relations without locating these with respect to the normative logics implied in (in)coherence or (in)consistency.
Or put more concisely, Gatherings are ‘Forms of craftings. Processes of weaving.’ In an earlier post, I discussed assemblage, not as a noun, a settled and fixed entity, but an ongoing active process of entanglement. So too with the Gatherings I offer. Whereas Law proposed Gatherings as method assemblage, I offer Gatherings crafted and bundled from data, and to some extent, the literatures. They are of course obliged to be fixed at least temporarily within this thesis; ‘a local and momentary gathering or accomplishment, rather than something that stays in place’ (Law, 2004a, p.129).
Some might see this wilful avoidance of arranging findings into neatly defined packages as abrogating one’s responsibilities as researcher. One reason I present my analysis as Gatherings is that it is consistent with flânography, and how teachers experience Twitter professional development (TPD) which is often messy, not laid out as structured, planned CPD sessions might be. Although this presents challenges for analysis, the techniques of ‘plugging in’ and ‘reading data through data’ described in the previous post become important strategies. Insights which consider the implications of the data and speculate on possible consequences are woven through the Gatherings, but drawn together at the end of each.
In presenting the Gatherings, I have assembled a variety of actors and data, and through sociomaterial description, followed Decuypere and Simons (2016) in producing ‘an adequate account.’
[…] it is an account (not a neutral rendering of facts) that is aimed at being adequate (that is, that makes a description of the actors gathered in such a way that these actors can ‘speak for themselves’, instead of being ‘spoken about’).
To that end, the Gatherings in the thesis are rich with data in the form of tweets, quotes from blog posts and quotes from interviews. (In the following blog posts however, in keeping with the previous posts, I’ll be summarising rather than presenting the data in full). In Interviewing the nonhumans, I outlined five of Adams’ and Thompson’s (2016) heuristics; one of these was ‘gathering anecdotes.’ Gatherings as the means to present those anecdotes seems coherent therefore. The heuristics not only ‘help researchers attend to the role of thingly gatherings of research practices’ (Thompson & Adams, 2013) but in my case, encouraged me to produce thingly Gatherings. As such, my thingly Gatherings are ‘important actors, complicit in co-creating the happenings of the world’ (Thompson, 2016) and are of course, partial accounts of those happenings.
Recent research is making it plain how complex teacher professional learning is. Adding Twitter into that mix does not simplify matters and I contend that these novel circumstances might be better addressed through a less conventional, more adaptive, responsive approach. Rather than working from a methodology which makes certain epistemological assumptions based on our current understanding of teacher professional learning, I wanted to remain open to different possibilities and hopefully produce fresh insights.
Don’t we always, life is better with companions! #ItTakesaVillage Enjoying your tidbits .
Graham Wegner’s discussion of personalised versus personalized. It has me thinking though that where there are two options we can have a tendency to alienate one of them. I am subsequently rethinking this and the benefits of different options., your discussion of the benefits of formal and informal reminds me of
flânographic methodology. I am intrigued to what it might have in other areas beyond Twitter., I am excited to read both your findings, as well as your
I also really like your reimagining of the traditional linear table of contents. I wonder what implication that this might have for something like the IndieWeb, especially the organisation of the wiki. At the very least it might be useful for Greg McVerry and his investigation of the IndieWeb for education.
Massive congratulations. I assume that eventually it maybe published somewhere digitally. Can’t wait to read it. Exciting times!
I don’t think any single visualisation could adequately describe ‘what I do when I do Twitter,’ but together, all of my different attempts help to paint the picture more (or less) clearly. I have three audiences to which I hope the visualisation will speak.
Once we trade in reproducibility I imagine that all we have is a case of ‘good-enough’ analysis? The problem I have is that if we were to approach this question from Fish’s interpretive communities then being convinced is not the challenge? If I am a positivist, will I ever be satisfied?