Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
computer technology (Nassr-Charlebois, 1990). Research has varied method-
ologically, with many studies being quantitative (Kraft, 1987; Walther,
Anderson & Park, 1994) and others being qualitative in the ethnographic tra-
dition (Clodius, 1994; Turkle, 1995; Zubrow, 1989). Sherry Turkle, for exam-
ple,ontheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyfaculty,conductsinterviews
with participants, looking at the psychological implications of the infusion of
computers into our daily lives. In particular, Turkle's work pursues the rela-
tionship between our interactions with computers and the ways in which we
perceive our sense of self. In her early work, she examines how information
technologyaffordsindividualsanopportunityforreflection,suggestingitpro-
vides a lens through which we can reconsider ourselves, hence a “second” self
(1984). In later work, Turkle highlights the ways in which individuals recon-
structtheiridentitiestoparticipateinacomputerizedculture,bothonandoff
thescreen.Shedescribes“howanascentcultureofsimulationisaffectingour
ideas about mind, body, self, and machine” (1995: 10). In her work, she sug-
gests that the computer not only provides an opportunity for users to reflect,
but also provides opportunities for people to reconstruct their identity.
Other researchers have analyzed and evaluated interactions and issues
regarding the way people communicate online in an attempt to move toward
anunderstandingofwhatmightbeconceivedofasacommunity.StevenJones
edited a collection of essays focused on assisting “its readers to become aware
and critical of the hopes we have pinned on computer-mediated communica-
tion and of the cultures that are emerging among network users” (1995).
Participant experiences of online group activity have been analyzed against a
typology of various communal forms to illuminate an understanding of what
might be referred to as the social form of online community (Gaiser, 2000).
There have been a number of books and papers written on the subject of
emergingcommunitiesenabledbycomputer-mediatedcommunication.Some
of the literature is case-study oriented (Rheingold, 1993; Smith, 1992), while
otherpublicationsareanthologiesthatbeginthesearchfornewsocialformsin
cyberspace and raise sociological questions regarding their nature (Jones,
1995). As noted by Jones, “just because the spaces with which we are now
concerned are electronic is not the case that they are democratic, egalitarian,
or accessible, and it is not the case that we can forego asking in particular
about substance and dominance” (1995: 23). Like other social scientists, Jones
raises questions about these new social forms online and calls for researchers
to evaluate them.
In education, researchers are attempting to expand educational models
beyondthestandardmodesofassessment.Inanassessmentofonlineeducational
venues, the lines between learning and evaluation are often blurred, where
the focus is on the creation of knowledge (Burnett & Roberts, 2005: 55-6).
The threaded discussions, or rather, chronological listing of participants
comments,employedbyBurnettandRobertsintheirresearchwithAustralian
undergraduates function as a type of unmoderated focus group. In this case,
