Oooh, baby’s got a brand new band. Today marked the end of two weeks of worry - I presented a progress report to the RMIT Graduate Research Conference. Last semester I got a “satisfactory - passable work but needs major reworking of thesis proposal”. This semester I got a “what a magnificent dude - tall and funny and smart too, whodathunkit?”.

Well, actually, it was more like “major issues sorted out”. But the feeling from the panel was very positive and encouraging, and they seemed impressed that I had moved so much in the semester.

Some questions arose from the panel, more out of interest than concern, that will be issues of guidance for the near future:

  1. Sample size. I reported that the data collected thus far from the sample identified was already almost 3000 pages worth, and wondered whether it was possible to cope with another eight months of data collection. It was suggested that I should approach one of the statistics-type research teaching staff at the university to get advice on what makes a good sample, which I’ll do. I’m also considering just halting the data collection at the end of next month, and then doing a small analysis to see if I’ve got enough to work with, or if I’ll need to get more.
  2. Am I a determinist? One of the panel suggested that my research questions carried a few assumptions: firstly, that blog technologies enable the construction of identity, and secondly, that bloggers shape common views of the EC. He said the questions smacked of technological determinism, which is fine per se, but which I’ll have to back up. I responded by saying that I know I’m not a technological determinist, but can see how the questions, as well as other parts of the report, read as such. I told him I was more into media ecology - seeing technology as creating an environment where patterns of social interaction and identity construction are framed, but other determinants of these patterns are also brought into the environment from the outside (like personal experience, church traditions, yada yada yada). As soon as I said that, I realised that talk of media ecology is sometimes seen as the “new” technological determinism. I know I need to do some more background research into where I sit - and how I frame my questions and answers. So more reading on McLuhan and Ellul and Postman et al.
  3. Measuring social capital. My explanation of the conceptual framework was well liked, and there was much discussion about how identity is constructed through social participation. Then the question was thrown into the ring: “Given you’re talking so much about social capital in the blogosphere, how are you going to describe or measure how it is being made?” Another panelist responded quickly to it, by talking about Technorati. I told them I’ll be doing some mapping of links, comments, Technorati lists, and whatever other traffic information I can find to diagrammatically represent the concepts. I reckon it can be done, and I’ll try to do it soon after completing the first round of data collection.
  4. Ancient-future. I mentioned that one of the tenets of an EC missiology may be to return or to reinvent ancient ritual practices and ways of faithful living, in an endeavour to live out the notions that Christianity now exists on the margins of a pluralised and secularised society, as we did nineteen centuries ago. A panelists mentioned that often “glorious pasts” such as this are constructs made in the present. I’m not sure how big an issue it is for me right now, but I’ll be looking into it. Would like to hear what you guys reckon.
  5. Research timetable. At another presentation I saw a fellow student give a funky timetable of his research, where all I gave was a simple list. For my own sanity I’m going to need to make a fuller and more retailed outline of my ongoing goals and make some milestones.