Tag: ir11

Quite fitting that there is a session on Twitter here at AoIR, even given the number of Tweets coming from #ir11.

Axel Maireder is speaking now about Twitter for transnational public discourses in Europe. Quite interesting how much research is now being done using Twitter, and how it is much more of just a microblogging medium. Hmm, I think I told people this a few years ago when I first started to tweet. I think I need to read his paper, as I am struggling to understand how he is using some of his  terms  (demos, public sphere). I do like his use of slides. Large text, blocks of color, and not too many (or any) bullet lists.

Musing about the variety of presentation skills I have seen here at the conference. Perhaps conference organizers can suggest guidelines for providing slide development and presentation guidelines. The first presentation has a wonderful slide deck. Large block type, few words, solid color backgrounds, etc. Perhaps I am focused on this as I teach management communication, and perhaps because I get paid for learning design, but there is such value in having good presentation skills to convey the many valuable messages that people have to share.

David Houghton is now presenting on Linguistic markers to self-disclosure of sensitive information on Twitter. Humorous Tweets are being shared with the question about linguistic differences on how people disclose things about themselves. Nice considerations of privacy issues.

Privacy and social networks, around informational or accessibility privacy. Juicy. Makes me think about identity development (yet again, how do I define myself or present myself usuig Twitter). Hmm, a reference for an online service, Secret Tweet. Have to explore that a bit.

Interesting linguistic markers. I wonder how these were developed? Yes, more papers I want to read. Wonder what is leading to David’s passion in this area? davidhoughton.info

Just heard about a cool website that everybody but me seems to know about, prezi.com.

Interesting session by Theo Plothe about Twitter feeds with NFL players. What a novel idea to bring various passions and interests together into novel research streams. I am struggling to follow some of the football references (surprised?), but really like to hear the down and dirty of the research methods used in this research. Really good model for presenting — engaging, examples, clear methods, research questions, and such.

I had no idea so many NFL players use Twitter in strategic ways. Interesting insight.

It is clear that Twitter research will increase, as the limited research that has already been done raises all sorts of new issues.

Sweet reference to Marcuse in a question about repressive tolerance.

I am beginning to think about liveblogging more directly through Twitter rather than here. Hmm, wonder if I should consider that for the next session?

This promised to be an interesting panel.

There are new forms of hybidization of porn, such as porn as art, as a education, as things that are acceptable, etc. Some of these new notions of porn as being smart, pop-culture, etc.

I wish the names of these presentations at the beginning of the panel discussion were listed on the PDF of the conference schedule. I better write the names next.

Quite an interesting next title, Widening the Glory Hole: Mapping the discourse of online porn fandom. Interesting again that the examples in this presentation seem to be heteronormative as well.

I wonder what the stats of porn users  are, such as male / female, gay / straight, etc. Sorry to use the same binaries that I heard all about this morning, but I am liveblogging here!

It is refreshing to see scholarship in the area of online porn (something I seem to know little about, evidently), as most of the examples are filled with  heteronormative examples. I wonder to what extent this purposely excludes GLBT porn, or perhaps that population is less interesting or accessible?

Increasingly social elements in porn, including male interaction and bonding (though not being gay). Digital communication provides more interaction, without a gay focus. Interesting that the conclusion about glory holes was provided in a way that promotes heteronormativity and male bonding (though not gay sexuality).

The next presenter (Sharif Mowlabocus) is now analyzing the porn site xTube. Rise of amateur porn as an intrument for subversion that problematizes the role of the oppressed and the oppressor. This is a fascinating perspective that I think applies critical theory to a topic that is often troublesome for “proper” discussion and research at all.

Well, since these are all paper presentations, perhaps this really is not a panel discussion as I had printed on my conference day overview. The research quotes that are being shared at the end are all so fascinating. Wish we could slow down to process them. Yes, one more subject about which I know  very little (porn and agency / subjectivity, issues control and embodiment, capitalism and labor, pressure to produce new effects as sublime capitalism without regard for wage or negotiation.

Susanna Paasonen is now speaking about Good amateurs: Erotica writing and quality.  She is exploring the literotica website. This last session is fascinating, as the focus is around literary usage and without the more widely-confugured set of images and videos.

I think this presentation is a great follow-up to all the work on surveillance and identity development I have attended today.

The session finished right on time, and as the last session in the room today, most people wanted to stay for questions. Ironic that the presentation and Q&A are being done in a very  dark room.

Interesting question about re-ifying the power imbalance of amateurs.

Every session I attended today has challenged my think in some way, and from this perspective I think this conference is money well spent.

Ahh, the Pro-Am stands for Professional-Amatuer! Yes, I am slow on the uptake.

This panel was around the topic of Internet use and research, especially around the use of emotion. The members of the roundtable are Sally Wyatt, TL Taylor (who spoke in our pre-conference as well), Laura Gurak, and Jeff Ubois.

They are speaking about the use of observed and personal emotion.

One was an example of anger (observed) and anxiety (tension about the personal experience of researchers in the field). There is a visceral experience of emotion online. If one lived through an experience of anger (such as in a problematic online gaming situation).

Another set of observed and experienced affect is memory, with lots of examples of people who had private information online and who wanted them removed due to the intensity and persistence of emotion (sex worker sites, wearing Nazi uniforms in WWII reenactments, etc.).  Really interesting comment about how the persistance of memory that has different effects on different people based on their lived experiences.

There is a lack of social cues and a sense of flaming, though there are examples of significant grief that a community could experience online. The experience of observing online grief.  Her experience of being lost in space, regarding reading onine, is quite empathetic.

A final example of oberved reaction is boredom. There was somebody who gets bored on the Internet, somewhat like ironing to this person who was described. Alas, I like ironing (or at least the repetitive nature of ironing tends to reset my often out of control lifestyle). The emotional experience that was felt was awe, especially given the focus on how people navigate the health system and online health information. Ahh, as per Giddens, living in late modernity “is hard work.” People can have an impact with theory and understanding reality without engaging in empirical work (e.g., Marx, Weber).

“This is a roundtable without a table.” One of the best lines I heard all day.

Questions and discussion about reading online, printing out papers, and the like. Now, onto archiving. Makes me think about how I can now load my PDF articles into my EndNote library.

The discussion about loss and archiving things online presents an interesting area of thought, especially around anonymity.

I like how one of the presenters said about how she likes to problematize that question. Things that we did not have before (such as photos in a box at a mother’s house), but now we have so many electronic ones that in some way we want to back them up and keep all of them. Their commonality seems to make even more important.

Really interesting ongoing reflection on archiving photos and the emotional memory / remembering that happens when we are reminded of them.

I disagree with the speaker now who says that we all (or at least primarily) produce and publish online and we want comments or people to move our work along.

Ahh, the Internet as a performative space of affect, as we often say or do things online that do not match what we do F2F. Perhaps it is to make a point, or raise affect of others or control or  even because we often cannot do that in-person?

Concluding thoughts — as  though affect has been studied and observed, there is still a feeling that affect can be pursued and discussed much more. No surprise here, as we still cannot understand or clearly give voice to F2F affect as well!!

Affect as currency and affect as effect and way of communicating / performing one’s identity. I wonder how this all can (will?) play a role in my research?