Discuss-Terry

From VMT

Greetings, chat participants (plus Wes and Alan)

Below is my rather long-winded summary from the chat on 6/14. It is also posted in the discussion area for my room.

Thanks to all for participating.

Terry

I've been pondering and appreciating our online session Monday, and I think I've finally got it, thanks to all. I know this will sound a lot like Gerry's initial suggestions, but I think I've found a way to frame it that I'm more comfortable with.

I know you will find this hard to believe, but I do worry a bit about overreaching. Overall, the VMT Project (to it's credit) has never purported to be an ethnographic study of any flavor, and I respect that. As you already know, I think there's some not-very-interesting work out there that purports to address grandiose goals through ethnographic research. What you've done instead is very precisely lay out your research methods and objectives. On it's face, this may look like a very modest enterprise, but of course it isn't. Therefore, I am more than a bit hesitant to directly proclaim what could or should be done to transform VMT into a critical ethnographic project. Similarly, I think it would be a bit pretentious (and dangerous) of me to proclaim that I'm doing an a CE of VMT. I'm not in a position to do anything comparable to Forsythe's work, and (as she demonstrates) that type of intervention is not necessarily appreciated.

HOWEVER, here's what I think I (we) could do. For the book chapter, how about something like:

"Critical Ethnographic Perspectives on the VMT Project"

For me, this approach addresses the concerns listed above. It does not directly suggest that VMT become anything it's not, nor does it proclaim that I'm doing a holistic analysis of VMT that I'm not really in a position to do. It also does not purport to pass judgment on what is or is not CE.

Going back to my posting at 3:33:00 "I think what I can do is present some evaluative criteria developed from outside CSCL and then apply them to VMT." What I mean by that is to look critically at the project somewhat as an outsider. Without needing to present VMT as a CE project, I can certainly (with lots of help from my friends) highlight aspects of the project that should be of interest even to folks working outside of CSCL. In his whiteboard posting Gerry has already given some excellent starting points. As I was writing the Forsythe gloss I was struck several times by the thought (which unfortunately is not incorporated anywhere in the current paper): "Hey, the VMT folks are already doing that!" For example, Forsythe repeatedly stresses the need to challenge common-sense understandings, but doesn't explicitly discuss how that can be done. I'm slowly coming to understand that by viewing common sense as a topic *of* analysis rather than as a resource *for* analysis, EM and CA perspectives provide a very clear picture of how and why Forsythe's concerns can be addressed. Similarly, she critiques the "model dialog of a typical doctor-patient encounter" because it didn't capture nuances of actual F2F communication. This is CA 101 and certainly reminds one of the unanticipated complexities of humans interacting with a Xerox machine.

I think something very interesting happened during the chat. There several responses along the lines of "Hey, we're already doing that!" That's the type of response that could go either way, but fortunately (for me at least) it seemed like the perspective I was bringing was inspiring folks to think about, and present, their own research in a slightly different light. Going back to Gerry's whiteboard posting, I'm guessing that there's not much explicit discussion of the social construction of reality, at least not in reports to NSF, but I can certainly appreciate that aspect of the project. Similarly, I loved it when, at 3:13:54, Murat introduced the concept of critical discourse analysis and later, when the issue of power relations in the classroom was raised. Toward the end there was discussion of how students' unanticipated uses of the software might help us understand some of the hidden assumptions and biases built into our systems. Once I'm a bit clearer about what I mean by CE, I'm counting on you folks to highlight for me aspects of your work that address some of these big issues. At 3:18:12 Gerry posed the question: "Could we do it together with you?" As far as I'm concerned, the answer is a resounding "Yes!". In fact, this could be a bit of participatory ethnography (all the rage these days).

Early in the session Gerry offered a provisional definition of CE: "Could you define is as the analysis of how people construct their social reality – with all the power relationships, etc. ?" This is excellent! Later, he reminded us that "Suchman is interested in how technology helps to construct social reality at the level of interpersonal interactions," which should also be an element in our definition.

Toward the beginning, Jim asked "Isn't that becoming a bit recursive?" I wasn't clear what this meant at the time, but I acknowledge that it's a relevant question for my entire project. After all, just about everything I know about CSCL and much of the related social theory I learned as one of Gerry's kids, so it is a bit circular to then use that knowledge (in part) to analyze the VMT project. However, these are longstanding issues for me. Back in the day, I did my anthropology dissertation on the social construction of whiteness in early colonial Virginia. Recursivity (if there is such a word) is a risk I'm willing to take. As Forsythe tells us, ethnography arises from the tension between participant and observer. I've been an appreciative VMT observer for some time, and trying to think about your work from a CE perspective has certainly enhanced that appreciation. But I'm also a bit of a participant. My incomplete CA work with Alan has certainly convinced me that the work you (we) are doing isn't as easy as it looks. Working with you folks to do this paper will certainly be a participatory experience.

So, here's the bottom line: I'd like to do a paper that examines VMT from a CE perspective. On one hand, I think this could foster an enhanced appreciation of CSCL in general and VMT in particular. In the process, the project may give you folks a somewhat different perspective on your own work and provide some inspiration about how to spend the next $5 million. On the other hand, by drawing out aspects of your work that address the Big Questions I think I can show why VMT should be on interest to folks in the outside world who are doing any manner of critical social science or educational research.