The post title cites phrases from the Postill and Pink’s paper: SOCIAL MEDIA ETHNOGRAPHY: THE DIGITAL RESEARCHER IN A MESSY WEB
(To cite: Postill, J. and S. Pink in press 2012. Social media ethnography: the digital researcher in a messy web. Media International Australia.)
It looks at the changing face of ethnography with the arrival of the internet: the emergent forms of social-media driven ethnographic practice. I realise that by including the use of a blog in the clipclub, depending on my question, I may have to touch on current thinking around this practice. The authors’ move away from the concepts of community and network, and towards associations of routine, movement and sociality, is more relevant to the ways in which the clipclub blog is being used. I can see ‘checking in on posts’ becoming routine for some of them.
However, I have a tussle going on ref. the quality of comments they tend to make: my teacherly side wants to see some form (any form, any tiny glimmer) of critical engagement or evidence of them having read the post they’re commenting on, and yet maybe the informal nature of the club means I should just be content with any kind of social media engagement that bridges home and school – the “thread sociality” and “quasi-orality” of which the authors speak.
I have an ambivalent relationship with the clipclub blog which I use a) to document the process, b) as a pedgogical tool and c) to examine their use of it in a research capacity. Surely these processes can’t be reconciled? can they? I suppose this is a classic anomaly in Action Research – where does the pedagogy stop and the research begin?