Weblogs and the Public Sphere....

According to Andrew O’Baoill, he assess the potential impact of weblogs on the public sphere, using a model based on the work of Jürgen Habermas to provide an ideal against which we can measure the efficacy of weblogs as a public space. 

Specifically including inclusivity of access, a disregard for external rank, and the potential for rational debate of any topic until consensus is achieved are necessary criteria for meeting Habermas's model of an idealized public sphere.

Inclusivity

Those promoting the weblog are proud of the fact that it is so easy to use, with a typical claim being that "anyone who can e-mail or buy online can blog" (Crowley, 2003).

Rank

Talking about outside rank-the reputation that a contributor builds within a public sphere can be properly taken into account, as it contributes to the warrant that a person is seen to issue with each speech act. (O'Baoill)

Rational Debate of Any Topic Until Consensus Is Achieved

The worry is that in the constant desire for new data-be it new sources to which to link or the constant need for anecdotes and entertaining memes-blogging provides a distraction, but little true insight or productive results. (O'Baoill)

Inclusivity and Rank are two necessary criteria I understand that are needed in weblogs and the public sphere.  Inclusivity basically states all are welcome as long as you can email or purchase items on line creating an inclusive environment.  The best example to use for rank includes the way Google works.  The most popular or most clicked on  key works/pages will be pushed to the top.  I’m still a little fuzzy on the rational debate of any topic until consensus is achieved.  I understand consensus as a general agreement shared by a group but how it relates to this topic I’m not sure.

References:

O'Baoill, Andrew, Weblogs and the Public Sphere, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Conceptual Representations...

While looking at Chapter two, we learn visual structures can either be narrative or conceptual.  Chapter three digs deeper into the conceptual category.  We start with classificational processes.  Classificational processes relate participants to each other in terms of a ‘kind of’ relaxation, a taxonomy: at least one set of participants will play the role of Subordinates with respect to at least one other participant, the Superordinate (p.79).

When looking at the processes in a breakdown similar to Green’s model, some issues that could occur would include:

Unstructured analytical processes- parts may be shown but the way the parts fit together to make a whole are not explained.

Temporal analytical processes- a set of participants is ordered linearly on a timeline and interpreted as the set of successive stages of a temporally unfolding process.

Exhaustive and inclusive analytical processes- a participant is depicted as made up of a number of parts and the structure is interpreted as showing all the parts from which the whole is made up.

Conjoined and compound exhaustive structures- possessive attributes are either connected, by a line lacking a feature of directionality, or disengaged by a layout of the Possessive Attributes which separates them, yet clearly shows how they fit together.

Topographical and topological processes- they are read as accurately representing the physical spatial relations and the relative location of the Possessive Attributes.

Dimensional and quantitative topography- scale based on the quantity or frequency of aggregates of participants that are taken to be identical.

Spatio-temporal analytical structures- two-dimensional charts create a conjunction between a set of such analytical structures and a timeline, for the sake of comparative analysis along an ordered timescale.

Since most important issues associated with new technologies and their associated practices and literacies are largely "hidden".  It makes sense for Green to use a visual model to represent his ideas of the three dimensions of literacy.  Taxonomies and flowcharts clearly provide two different kinds of knowledge.  The one represents the world in terms of a hierarchical order.  Its main concern is the ranking of phenomena from the perspective of a single unifying term, be it that of the origin of things, the most generalizing generalization, or that of the highest power.  The other describes the world in terms of an actively pursued process with a clear beginning and an end (p.84).

The Jenkins video was pretty interesting and I think I've started to visually structure Jenkins “New Digital Literacies” in my classroom with blogs and smart phone use.  I’ve created a five week blog project that students will respond to a specific topic.  The smart phone use comes into play with an activity I present at the end of class called “One last word”.  I read a fashion related quote to the class and direct the students to search the author of the quote and what their interpretation is.  

If I remember correctly, I believe the only time I laid out information in a relational conceptual representation to clarify meaning was with colleagues and understanding what role and responsibility everyone had.

References:

Jenkins, Henry. "TEDxNYED - Henry Jenkins - 03/06/10." Online video clip. Youtube. Uploaded on April 13th, 2010. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCLKa0XRlw. January 29th, 2015.

Kress, Gunther & van Leeuwen, Theo (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.