Abstract
Early definitions of virtual learning communities often abstracted participants from their offline environments. However, often students’ virtual and physical environments are not essentially separated. Likewise, scholars should become more sensitive to and aware of their research principles and practices guiding studies in virtual settings and especially, in the intersections of on- and offline contexts. The participant experience method discussed in this paper, grants access also to the events outside the virtual learning context connecting various social settings and simultaneous events. However, the use of participant experience methods requires critical reflection during its various phases and levels of implementation. Firstly, during the fieldwork, the relationship between researcher and researched should be reflected and the representation and reconstruction of these, often intense, field experiences into the field texts should be focused on. Secondly, the process and the inquiry that moulds the field documents into the research account should be highlighted. In order to represent both the researchers’ voices and the voices of the other social actors from the field, a multi-voiced analysis implemented as a split-text narrative is proposed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Becker, H. (1974). Photography and sociology. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication, 1(1), 3–26.
Brady, M. (1999). Students’ and teacher’s diaries. In G. Clarebout and J. Elen (Eds.). The ParlEuNet project. When instruments gets confused. Report on the methodology used in the experimentation phase (pp. 13-19). Centre for Instructional Psychology & Technology (CIP & T), University of Leuven.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carr, D. (1986). Time, narrative and history. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Clandinin, D. & Connelly, M. (1998). Personal experience methods. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp.150–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self. Fieldwork and the representation of identity. London: Sage.
Crites, S. (1979). The aesthetics of self-deception. Soundings, 62, 107–129.
Denzin, N & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dillenbourg, P. (2000). Virtual learning environments. Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the University of Geneva, TECFA web site: http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.5.18.pdf.
Dreier, O. (1999). Personal trajectories of participation across contexts of social practice. Outlines-Critical Social Studies, 1, 5–32.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography. Principles in practice. London: Routledge.
Harper, D. (1998). On the authority of the image. Visual methods at the crossroads. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 130–149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
Jones, S. (1999). Studying the net. Intricacies and issues. In S. Jones (Ed.). Doing Internet research. Critical issues and methods for examining the Net (pp. 1–27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, S. & Kucker, S. (2001). Computers, the Internet and virtual cultures. In J. Lull (Ed.). Culture in the communication age (pp. 212–225). London: Routledge.
Jones, S. (2002). Afterword. Building, buying or being there. Imagining online community. In A. Renninger and W. Shumar (Eds.). Building virtual communities. Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 368–376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lotfalian, M. (1996). A tale of an electronic community. In G. Marcus (Ed.). Connected (pp. 117–156). Chigaco: Chigaco University Press.
Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research. A handbook for researching online. London: Sage.
Shumar, W. & Renninger, K.A. (2002). Introduction. On conceptualising community. In A. Renninger and W. Shumar (Eds.). Building virtual communities. Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sterne, J. (1999). Thinking the Internet. Cultural studies versus the Millennium. In S. Jones (Ed.). Doing Internet research. Critical issues and methods for examining the Net (pp. 257–283). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, J.B. (1995). The media and modernity: a social theory of the media. Cambridge: Polity.
Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. In B. Wellman (Ed.). Networks in the global village (pp. 331–67). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pöysä, J., Mäkitalo, K., Häkkinen, P. (2003). A Participant Experience Method for Illustrating Individuals’ Experiences in the Course of an Evolving Virtual Learning Community. In: Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., Hoppe, U. (eds) Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0195-2_54
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0195-2_54
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6321-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0195-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive