#DigPed Narratives in Education: Critical Perspectives on Power and Pedagogy

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i3.1370

Keywords:

#DigPed, critical online pedagogy, gatekeeping, hashtag community

Abstract

This mixed methods study addresses a knowledge gap in the nature and effects of networked scholarship. We analyze #DigPed, a Twitter hashtag on critical pedagogy, through the lens of Tufekci’s Capacities and Signals framework in order to understand (1) how educational narratives develop and spread on #DigPed, and (2) the nature of their capacities. Using Social Network Analysis and thematic analysis of content, we identify three prominent narratives in the network and discuss the network structures from a critical perspective. Based on the findings, we propose pedagogic capacity—the power to initiate a productive and potentially transformative educational discourse, within one’s self and within communities—as an additional lens to explore the spread and impact of critical narratives in education. Findings confirm the view that networked spaces are organized by hidden hierarchies marked by influence.

References

Bali, M., Caines, A., deWaard, H., & Houge, R. J. (2016). Ethos and practice of a connected learning movement: Interpreting Virtually Connecting through alignment with theory and survey results. Online Learning, 20(4), 212-229.

Barzilai‐Nahon, K. (2009). Gatekeeping: A critical review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1-79.

boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39-58). New York: Routledge.

Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2015). Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In N. Rambukkana (Ed.), Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks (pp. 13-28). Peter Lang, New York.

Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A Survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414-434.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Clauset, A., Newman, M. E., & Moore, C. (2004). Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70(6), 1-6.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DPL. (n.d.). Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/

Fang, J. (2016). In defence of hashtag activism. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 2(1), 137-142.

Farrow, R. (2017). Open education and critical pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 130-146.

Forte, A., Humphreys, M., & Park, T. (2012). Grassroots professional development: How teachers use Twitter. Proceedings of the Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 106-103). Dublin, Ireland.

Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, & K. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167-194). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gursakal, N., & Bozkurt, A. (2017). Identifying gatekeepers in online learning networks. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 9(2), 75-88.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2010). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann.

Iiyoshi, T., & Vijay Kumar, M. S., (2008). An invitation to open up the future of education. In T. Iiyoshi, & M. S. Vijay Kumar (Eds.), Opening Up Education. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Koutropoulos, A., Abajian, S. J., deWaard, I., Hogue, R. H., Keskin, N. O., & Rodriguez, C. O. (2014). What tweets tell us about MOOC participation. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 9(1), 8-21.

Metoyer-Duran, C. (1993). Information gatekeepers. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 28, 111-150.

Quan-Haase, A., Martin, K., & McCay-Peet, L. (2015). Networks of digital humanities scholars: The informational and social uses and gratifications of Twitter. Big Data & Society, 2(1).

Smith, M., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter topic Networks: From polarized crowds to community clusters (Research report). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/20/mapping-twitter-topic-networks-from-polarized-crowds-to-community-clusters/

Stewart, B. (2015). Open to influence: What counts as academic influence in scholarly networked "Twitter" participation. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 287-309.

Stewart, B. (2016). Collapsed publics: Orality, literacy, and vulnerability in academic Twitter. Journal of Applied Social Theory, 1(1), 61-86.

Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear Gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.

Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher Education scholars' participation and practices on Twitter. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 336-349.

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 166-189.

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars’ and faculty members’ lived experiences in online social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43-50.

Veletsianos, G., & Stewart, B. (2016). Discreet openness: Scholars’ selective and intentional self-disclosures online . Social Media and Society, 1(11), 1-11.

Yang, G. (2016). Narrative agency in hashtag activism: The case of #BlackLivesMatter. Media and Communication, 4(4). 13-17.

Downloads

Published

2018-09-01

Issue

Vol. 22 No. 3 (2018)

Section

Section II

License

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions