Following Luker's metaphor of “framing” or “inserting yourself into the conversation” I began to think about my current research interest – open data and personal revelation as an act of altruism, empathy or “charitable donation”. In terms of the current conversation in my particular interest area I came to realize quite a bit exists, albeit in seemingly unrelated ways. Some particular frames that exist both academically and professionally consist of gift economies, the open source software movement, and crowdsourcing. Academically, gift economies and the social theorists that constitute its studies most accurately align with my interests.
The difficulty arises when I attempt to link personal revelation as a reciprocally altruist act in relation to some real world phenomena. It doesn't appear to explicitly exist yet; however I believe that framing personal revelation in this manner will become an important rhetorical device in the solicitation of that data. Think about organ donation, petitions, and as Brian Harding mentioned, the debate surrounding the long-form census. Where then does my research interest fit? In science fiction books where the ubiquitous web-of-things senses every facet of our existence? Perhaps within economics where the idea of social capital is prominent. Maybe the next step is personal non-monetary or asset-backed capital? How may I insert myself into a conversation wherein it appears that my would-be topic of discussion is a serious academic discussion of aliens?
Hey Mike -
ReplyDeleteI've been following the discussion here about your topic - VERY interesting, and I hope helpful in leading you to the question that lies at this particular intersection.
I was wondering if you've looked at any of the work on affective labour in social networks/online forums...some of the work I've read has attempted to theorize on how personal testimony/revelation/personal relationships fits in with this larger theme of gift economy (and commodification of use/user). I haven't seen it used in exactly this way, but perhaps it could be helpful to you. The big name here is Negri, but I'm thinking specifically of the way Negri's theories have been applied to social networks and online communities by Mark Cote and Jennifer Pybus, among others.
Or have you already come across this work/theory and found that it doesn't quite fit?
Hi Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe INF1001 & INF1003 lectures keep reminding me back to your research interest on the positive side of open data resources,particularly the video lecture shown in INF1003. Apparently there are a lot of benefits of open data resources that are significant to the scientific development in the human history. However, there are always ethnic issues alongside. When people got slashed on their faces, they tend to forget all the "goodess". Personally, I am thrilled to open data resource whenever I am searching for research references. However, I will fall back whenever privacy issues become a concern. Yet, as many heroic Holleywood movies show, there is always a bad guy associated with a good guy, but in the end the good guy will always win. Can we rely upon humanity to bar the benefits of open data from being manipulated by the evils?