Free Thinking: Models of Knowledge Construction

Just a few quick notes — “free thinking” in the spirit of #showyourwork — and on the subject of the production and construction of knowledge*.

This spring/summer I’ve observed at least three separate types of digital spheres in which engagement and information exchange occur: Tumblr fandom, Wikipedia, and transcription models. I have approached these as “project-oriented” spaces because participants

  • are operating independently but with the belief that others can see and share their work/product/material,
  • have opportunities to see the work of others and integrate, respond to, or reject that work
  • can use the technology to assert information as knowledge, evidence, or fact
  • can communicate with [someone else] working on the project, though maybe not always directly with each other.

These spaces have also been home to certain kinds of collaborative or project-oriented communication. In other words, in these spaces people have shared information with or without conditions, been working together to achieve a goal, and/or have worked together to create an agreed-upon outcome (consensus). Finally, these are realms of knowledge production and/or construction.

Construction Work - Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa Prefecture, JP
Construction Work – Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa Prefecture, JP

In the past, I have referred to webs of knowledge and cultural webs in my writing – and often what I am discussing is how individuals come together to share information or existing “knowledge” about subjects. Yet, in these spaces, we can also see nuances of producing or constructing knowledge – two different models of knowledge at play in these spaces.

I have distinguished between these models as “authorized” versus “authenticated” knowledge. I’ve gotten feedback that these definitions sound IT or technologically centered. I briefly considered “control” versus “consensus” but that appears to me too critical of the former – and actually so does “authorized.” Therefore, I am resting my thoughts currently on the following pair:

“Offered” versus “Authored” knowledge

These models of knowledge are distinguished and related to spaces of participatory practices in a few ways.

First, “offered” knowledge is the suggested or preferred way of viewing the body of information – you could perhaps label it official, or curated, or dominant discourse. “Authored” knowledge is a version of information developed through a collaborative and information-sharing process. One way to think of this kind of knowledge is as augmenting or contextualizing “offered” knowledge.

Secondly, In participatory processes, “offered” knowledge can be combined with other knowledge repositories to create “authored” knowledge. “Authored” knowledge, therefore, references and/or builds upon existing “offered” knowledge. As a participant contributes to “authored” knowledge, he or she may reference the discrepancies between these two knowledge bases. He or she might also gain acceptance or earn status in the group by understanding and correctly using (and perpetuating) authored knowledge.

I will jump off here and continue to flesh out the relationship between “offered” and “authored” knowledge – and how it is implicated in sustaining or remaking relationships of power. If you’ve come across these models in other spaces, please share your observations in the comments. I’m curious to learn more about digital places that highlight models of knowledge and where “offered” knowledge is sustained or remade through participatory “authoring.”

*knowledge: “a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique” – merriam-webster.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge

Image via Flickr Commons – gullevek and Construction Work (2006)

Editors Unite: Expeditions & Explorers

On Friday, I was pleased to co-host Expeditions & Explorers – a Wikipedia edit-a-thon bringing new and experienced editors together with focus on materials from the Field Book Project.

Below are the slides I used to introduce a few of our participants to editing on Wikipedia.  Rather than a pure “How-to,” the slides reflect “How to think, plan, and execute your edits.” I welcome feedback and suggestions – send me your best practice tips for editing on Wikipedia!

This Wikipedia edit-a-thon was a smashing success! We created four new articles, fleshed out existing articles, introduced new people to the Wikipedia project, exchanged a lot of best practice tips and resources. We also had an amazing lunch, courtesy of grant money from Wikimedia DC (thank you!). I hope the participants enjoyed themselves, developed skills, and learned more about the scientists and expeditions. A more detailed review of our work is in the works, so watch this space…

The Field Book Project is a joint Smithsonian Institution Archives and National Museum of Natural History initiative that is focused on preserving and digitizing field notes from scientists and researchers. The overall mission of the initiative is “to create one online location for scholars and others to visit when searching for field books and other field research materials.” Also find more information from Smithsonian Institution Archives.

AAA 2013: DANG, that’s necessary conflict

Conflict is uncomfortable… yet necessary, at least in the case of my research and submission to the Digital Anthropology group, DANG, panel for the American Anthropological Association (AAA) 2013 meeting. In Chicago this year, I’m hoping to share my findings about the ways in which a fandom encounters and uses conflict between members to refine the values they espouse.

“It boils down to respect”:

Defining the values of a fandom through conflict online

Increasingly, social media allows users to connect their online behaviors to physical practices in pursuit of collective goals. In these digital public spaces, communities of practice are able to bypass geographic and temporal boundaries. For U.S. Women National soccer team (USWNT) fans, Tumblr offers a digital realm in which multimodal communication unfolds – and quite often, conflict arises. Through online ethnography and discourse analysis, this study examines conflict as essential to refining USWNT fandom values; however, conflict also jeopardizes the participatory practices that define the fandom.

This community of practice can be explored as a collaborative project that incorporates wider discourses of gender, sport, and nation. USWNT fans share media from first-hand experiences, as well as produce user-generated content. Fan-users also broadcast requests to the fandom, display insider knowledge, and articulate meaning in belonging to the fandom. Subjects spurring USWNT fandom conflict include source attribution and rules for appropriately tagging content. Frustrations about these points of conflict threaten archiving and sharing habits, which in turn threaten to dry one data stream through which “fandom” knowledge is quenched.

Considering the future of open access and linked communities, the current justifications fan-users apply toward the perceptions of ethical responsibilities in the fandom may be instructive. This paper also considers methodological and ethical challenges in researching asynchronous communication in a dynamic digital space. The ways in which the USWNT fandom “does” conflict may offer insight into the ways digitally mediated behaviors could inform practices and discursive spaces of future engagements and conflict resolution.

 

Day of DH (#dayofdh)

I’m excited to be participating in #dayofdh today- which I admittedly stumbled upon last night – and to learn so much more about DH activities around the world. There are already some fascinating insights into the range of interests, activities, behaviors, and of course humor of DH practitioners at work today.

Follow this project on Twitter using #dayofdh or @DayofDH and at the host site at MSU with a collaborative focus – Day of DH 2013

Here’s the description from Twitter: “A Day in the Life of the Digital Humanities is a project that examines the state of the digital humanities through the lens of those within it.

Also follow my tweets updating my DH work today or have a gander at my #dayofdh site
meghaninmotion for #dayofdh

More to follow in a write up of the experience today –

**note the site title is meghaninmotion, as one might anticipate, though my internal handle came out meghaninotion (meghan in otion… meghan in OCEAN??)

Crowdsourcing and Engaging Users

This presentation shares the thinking I’ve been using to frame some of my recent work: relating to crowdsourcing and engaging users in transcription of digitally archival material and communities of practice on Wikipedia. With this Prezi, I delivered an information briefing to decision-makers at Smithsonian Institution (SI) in mid-March. This is an on-going, work-in-progress situation that seems to offers great opportunities to improve upon and expand crowdsourcing in exciting ways at SI.

I’d like to take up the call to “show my work” and commit more clearly to open data and open cultural data, which would include sharing steps on how to get to conclusions.Please get in touch if you have thoughts or feedback on these guiding principles – or the tools I’ve discussed.