I was pleased that Nigel made some space for us on Monday to meet in our groups. I felt that because half of my group members were prevented to attend the lecture the previous week we were lagging a bit behind. As aforementioned I have difficulties making decisions and imposing them upon others, something I will definitely have to work on.
Anyway, as we presented our ideas Nigel pointed out that we had to find a focus point linking them all together so as to avoid making the group project sound as if it were three/ four separate essays rather than one coherent, fluid piece. So Karl, Neng and I met Thursday afternoon to discuss this. We had agreed on Monday to do some reading on virtual communities. After an ongoing debate we all came to the conclusion that it would be tricky to come up with one unanimous definition for the term ‘community’. So we decided that through our piece we will be aiming to explore the different ways the term is understood (and how virtual communities might differ from and/or be similar to real life communities) by comparing and examining specific virtual communities as case studies (Queeruption, MySpace, and possibly a third one which we have yet to agree upon).
Overall, I'm quite happy with the way the group project is developing. I’m also relieved that we were given an indication of how long the piece is expected to be (thanks to Bella!). I’m still a little puzzled though about the style of writing that is required of us. I understand that it is supposed to be academic but in the first person… Oh well, I’m sure we’ll figured it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment