Researching academic literacy practices around Twitter : performative methods and their onto-ethical implications

This chapter takes the example of the micro-blogging platform Twitter to explore the nature and implications of research into literacy practices in the ‘digital university’. Drawing on data collected for a study on the use of Twitter by academics at a British university, it compares the different and often contradictory findings that emerged from three datasets. Though focused on the same broad population, the datasets were grounded in three distinct methodological approaches (metric analysis, survey, and ethnography) and responded to different institutional and personal agendas. After a discussion of the data itself, the assumptions embedded within the approaches are unpacked and the implications for locating and researching ‘the Digital’ interrogated. The chapter concludes by addressing the implications of a performative reading of method on research into literacy in the digital university, arguing that researchers should acknowledge the enactments of ‘the Digital’ that emerge through their methods and texts and consider the onto-epistemological and ethical implications of these enactments.

[1]  Martin Weller,et al.  Big and little OER , 2010 .

[2]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[3]  Aleks Krotoski,et al.  Identity and Agency , 2015 .

[4]  Karen Barad Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter , 2003, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.

[5]  Mary R. Lea,et al.  Digital literacies in higher education: exploring textual and technological practice , 2011 .

[6]  Theo van Leeuwen,et al.  Introducing social semiotics , 2005 .

[7]  M. Green,et al.  Digital natives , 2012, BDJ.

[8]  Yoram Eshet-Alkalai,et al.  Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital era , 2004 .

[9]  A. Mol Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions , 1999 .

[10]  Jenny Fry,et al.  Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  M. Burawoy The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and Its Epistemological Others , 2005 .

[12]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  Bowling online: social networking and social capital within the organization , 2009, C&T.

[13]  C. Haythornthwaite,et al.  Internet and Community , 2010 .

[14]  J. Law After Method: Mess in Social Science Research , 2004 .

[15]  Jude Fransman Re-Imagining the Conditions of Possibility of a PhD Thesis , 2012 .

[16]  B. Wellman,et al.  Social Connectivity in America: Changes in Adult Friendship Network Size From 2002 to 2007 , 2010 .

[17]  E. Kassens-Noor Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in higher education: The case of sustainable tweets , 2012 .

[18]  Nieves González Fernandez-Villavicencio Helping students become literate in a digital, networking-based society: A literature review and discussion , 2010 .

[19]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  The quality of online social relationships , 2002, CACM.

[20]  A. Reed ‘My blog is me’: Texts and persons in UK online journal culture (and anthropology) , 2005 .

[21]  John Unsworth,et al.  A Companion to Digital Humanities , 2008 .

[22]  Colleen Cuddy Twittering in Health Sciences Libraries , 2009 .

[23]  Emerging Literacies in Online Learning , 2015 .

[24]  Nieves González-Fernández-Villavicencio,et al.  Helping students become literate in a digital, networking-based society: A literature review and discussion , 2010 .

[25]  Barbara Blummer,et al.  Promoting Digital Literacy Skills: Examples from the Literature and Implications for Academic Librarians , 2010 .

[26]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[27]  S. Shapin Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts , 1981, Medical History.

[28]  Martin Weller,et al.  The digital scholar : how technology is transforming scholarly practice , 2011 .

[29]  Gabrielle Durepos Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor‐Network‐Theory , 2008 .

[30]  Efrossyni Delmouzou,et al.  Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. , 2002 .

[31]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[32]  R. Goodfellow Literacy, literacies and the digital in higher education , 2011 .

[33]  J. Law A Sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination , 1991 .

[34]  N. Nie Sociability, Interpersonal Relations, and the Internet , 2001 .

[35]  M. Callon Introduction: The Embeddedness of Economic Markets in Economics , 1998 .

[36]  D. Barton,et al.  Beyond Communities of Practice: Language , 2005 .

[37]  R. J. Repique Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants , 2013, Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association.

[38]  Stephen Hailes,et al.  The Digital University — Building a Learning Community , 2001, Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

[39]  Mary Kalantzis,et al.  Signs of Epistemic Disruption: Transformations in the Knowledge System of the Academic Journal , 2009, First Monday.

[40]  Danah Boyd,et al.  I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience , 2011, New Media Soc..

[41]  Eileen Scanlon,et al.  Digital scholarship considered : how new technologies could transform academic work. , 2010 .

[42]  B. Street Literacy in Theory and Practice , 1984 .

[43]  Adam W. Tyma Connecting with What Is Out There!: Using Twitter in the Large Lecture , 2011 .

[44]  C. Michael Elavsky,et al.  When talking less is more: exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large‐lecture hall , 2011 .