The View From Carnegie 210

from deviantART

As the new spring semester begins, and a much-loved sabbatical ends, I'm taking stock of tasks accomplished and new goals to pursue.

Pre-tenure leave was productive. Researched, wrote, and obtained a grant from the GLCA Pathways to Learning Collegium to examine cognitive psychology principles in the classroom. In addition, developed an idea for a session discussing strategies for encouraging undergraduate research which I will lead at the AAC&U conference on High Impact Practices in March. Also, had the opportunity to share some recent work on campus by presenting in the Allegheny Faculty Lecture Series. And, last but not least, submitted an article co-authored by an Allegheny alum. Not bad for a couple month's work.

Up next: the new semester. Classes starting this week and meeting with advisees, compers, and potential research assistants. Also, finalizing an interesting schedule of topics for Cognitive Group this semester. Plus, plans to submit another article in the coming months.

In any event, Professor Knupsky is back in her office and ready for business again. Having that old familiar feeling and quickly getting back into the swing of things.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Professor Knupsky is on pre-tenure leave for the Fall 2009 semester. She is researching, writing, baking, napping, and house hunting, but will be back in the Spring to resume her regularly scheduled life.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Zits

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the consequences of CMC that we reviewed this semester does leave me with lingering concerns. Specifically, what happens when the people we are with physically, in the present moment, have to compete with those who are not physically present for our attention? What does it mean when we use technology to communicate with "absent" individuals when we are supposedly carrying on a conversation with those sitting next to us? Are we ever able to be in the here and now when the "here" has a limitless scope thanks to technology? How does this change in "here" affect our ability to have a deep, reflective conversation when our minds are only half in the here and are half out "there"? How are we able to engage in active listening? How do we contribute in a meaningful way to such conversations? And, if we are no longer able to accomplish these communicative goals, what are the long-term consequences to our relationships and to the development of our social skills?

Renny Gleeson expresses similar concerns in a recent TED Talk.

Tags: CMC communication divided attention technology

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When discussing David Crystal's txtng, the question of whether CMC can support political engagement and political activism was raised. Some of us questioned whether tools like texting really could unite people and bring them together for common action. Crystal discussed the phenomenon of pasalo (pass it on) texts which, after the train bombings in Madrid, brought people together to stand against the act of terrorism. He also discusses flash mobbings where the goal of the community action is perhaps less meaningful, but no less impressive an example of collective action. In our discussion of these acts, we seemed to question whether social upheaval via texting was possible. Would receiving such a message be enough to inspire students to get involved? Would communities come together as a result of a call to arms initiated through CMC? Or, would we simply control the volume and move on to the next message from a friend?

On the front page of the NY Times today, I saw at least one form of evidence that, yes, CMC can support the type of collective action Crystal described. In the article Protests in Moldova Explode, With Help of Twitter the reporter details how the use of text messaging, Facebook, and Twitter brought thousands of young people together in protest. Food for thought.

Tags: collective action protest Twitter

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 2:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Zits

Beer (2008) questions whether it makes sense to continue to distinguish between on-line and off-line friendships, suggesting that as the use of social network sites like Facebook becomes more and more common, the ways we think about and define friendship are sure to be influenced by the on-line world. And, importantly, these changes may often happen in the "background," without a conscious acknowledgement about how the two "worlds" are interacting. Furthermore, Beer points out that as we begin to add other technologies and softwares to our understanding of "mediated" communication (cell phones, iPods, Blackberries, e-mail, blogging, podcasts, etc.) it becomes virtually impossible to identify communication spaces, even face-to-face ones, that aren't in some way mediated. Therefore, instead of separately defining on-line and off-line relationships and "friendships," Beer argues that we should focus on defining these from a more general perspective, incorporating both on-line and off-line notions of friendship along a common continuum.

What then, is a Friend? How does the type, scope, and function of friendship develop apart from the communication space in which it is born? What are the points of intersection, and perhaps, distinctions across what we see as on-line and off-line friendships?

Beer (2008). Social network(ing) sites...revisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd & Nicole Ellison.  Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 516-529.

Tags: Defining Friendship Facebook Social Network Sites

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)