ACFAS 415 – Savoirs hybrides et enjeux pour l’expertise

Quelques détails et références sur ma présentation pour le colloque “Les sciences à l’aube du 21e siècle : l’incidence des technologies numériques et la contribution des amateurs”

Communauté en ligne comme vecteur de la communication de la science en action

“Le savoir médical impose depuis toujours une distinction entre les experts, qui en disposent (les professionnels, les médecins) des autres (les « profanes », les patients, les clients) qui parfois vont jusqu’à « subir » les diagnostics et les avis qui sont portés sur leur santé. L’arrivée d’Internet a lentement bouleversé cette répartition de la connaissance médicale et la hiérarchie ascendante de la relation patient/médecin. En tant qu’outil d’élaboration, de partage, de mise à disposition de nouveaux savoirs, mais aussi en tant qu’outil accessible au plus grand nombre, Internet a rebattu les cartes de la connaissance médicale, en permettant aux individus d’accroître leurs connaissances sur la santé, de la mettre en discussion, mais aussi – sans totalement le remettre en cause – d’acquérir du pouvoir sur le corps médical. ” (Amsellem-Mainguy, 2015)

« le système de santé doit avant tout pouvoir prouver, au niveau économique, qu’il y a de vrais gains à tirer de l’expertise du patient. »

 

 

Références

Akrich, M., Méadel, C., Rémy, C., & Vergnaud, F. (2008). Les patients et l’information: le cancer au risque d’internet.

Amsellem-Mainguy, Y. (2015). À la fin, tu penses que tu vas mourir, mais tu y retournes! Rapport d’étude Jeunes, Santé et Internet, Institut national de la jeunesse et de l’éducation populaire.

Benski, T., & Fisher, E. (2014). Introduction : investigating emotions and the Internet. Dans T. Benski & E. Fisher (dir.), Internet and emotions. New York, NY : Routledge.

Clavier, V., Manes-Gallo, M.-C., Mounier, E., Paganelli, C., Romeyer, H. et Staii, A. (2010). Dynamiques interactionnelles et rapport à l’information dans les forums de discussion médicale. Dans F. Millerand, S. Proulx & J. Rueff (dir.), Web social: mutation de la communication (p. 297-314). Québec, QC.

Nabarette, H. (2002). L’internet médical et la consommation d’information par les patients. Réseaux(4), 249-286.

Romeyer, H. (2008). TIC et santé: entre information médicale et information de santé. tic&société, 2(1).

Romeyer, H. (2010). La santé dans l’espace public (pp. 213-p). Presses de l’EHESP.

Romeyer, H. (2012). La santé en ligne. Des enjeux au-delà de l’information. Communication. Information médias théories pratiques, 30(1).

Trépos, J. Y. (2002). L’expertise comme équipement politique de la société civile. Questions de communication, (2), 7-18.

ACM Web Science 2015 take-away

Here are some ideas and things I remember from the The 2015 ACM Web Science conference WebSci’15 held at the Oxford e-Research Centre and Keble College :

Membrane metphore

Markus Strohmaier used an intriguing metaphor for talking about the Web. He said it was a membrane. So the Web is  like thin pliable sheet that cover and connect us. This metaphor bring some biological, living connotation to the Web and how we see it.  This echo in my own research on everyday life and the Internet. Seigworth and Gardiner (2004) remind us that we must reintroduce “life” in everyday life studies. The authors argue that cultural studies have stiffened by only using part of the organic metaphor :the skeleton, and leaving aside the soft tissues. Seigworth and Gardiner (2004) propose to take into account the “soft tissue”: the imperceptible, flexible and  mobile circulation  in the body. Fully reintroduce the “life” in everyday life would then consider its moments, its movements, and its multiplicities different materials, not just the big rigid structure.

Best quote used in a presentation :

“Big data is like teenage sex: everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, everyone thinks everyone else is doing it, so everyone claims they are doing it.” – Dan Ariely

Prospography vs ANT theory

It is interesting to see how other discipline study the Web, for instance people in the humanities :

Archetypal Narratives in Social Machines: Approaching Sociality through Prosopography Segolene Tarte, Pip Willcox, Hugh Glaser and David De Roure

In this paper, they used prosopography. According to wikipedia it is an investigation of the common characteristics of a historical group, whose individual biographies may be largely untraceable, by means of a collective study of their lives, in multiple career-line analysis.^[1] Prosopographical research has the goal of learning about patterns of relationships and activities through the study of collective biography; it collects and analyses statistically relevant quantities of biographical data about a well-defined group of individuals. This makes it a valuable technique for studying many pre-modern societies.

Instead of opening the black box and analyze what all the actors are doing, those researcher build the archetypal narrative using a Jungian approach. So they do a biography of the infrastructure.

A need to understand the contexts

The big take away from the conference, is that the issue of context. A lot of data is over-analyzed and under-contextualized.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Seigworth, G., & Gardiner, M. (2004). Rethinking everyday life: And then nothing turns itself inside out. Cultural Studies, 18(2-3), 139-159. doi: 10.1080/0950238042000201455

Solidarité estudiantine comme outil de recrutement

Je vais présenter au colloque Regards sur la participation et sur la recherche étudiante en communication, qui se tiendra les vendredi 20 février et samedi 21 février 2015 à l’Université du Québec à Montréal.

SÉANCE 5/PANEL 5 : RÉFLEXIVITÉS/REFLEXIVITY
(Salle Pierre-Bourgault, 1^er étage/1^st floor)

Par une discussion sur les implications méthodologiques rencontrées durant ma recherche, je voudrais ouvrir le dialogue sur l’impact de la participation d’étudiants dans les recherches d’autres étudiants. Dans mon cas, la réalité du recrutement a été difficile : je n’ai pu recueillir suffisamment d’intéressés pour participer à recherche sur le partage de vidéos en ligne. Par conséquent, mon échantillon a été majoritairement constitué d’étudiants, de collègues, comprenant la difficulté à laquelle j’étais confrontée. À ce jour, je reste perplexe quant au manque d’enthousiasme suscité par les projets étudiants. J’entends en discuter avec vous.

Wrap-up #SMSOCIETY14

Here are some things I found interesting at  Social Media & Society in Toronto

Being human is messy, things that look good on paper are not possible in real life. Internet is an extension of space, not a separate one.

Privacy, Copyright, and Conventions of Use and Reuse of Twitter Content in Contemporary Online Practices” .The panel was a conversation around journalistic practices, how to explain privacy terms to users, the importance of context.

Twitter Copyright Embeds Privacy by Siobhan O’Flynn

Social Ties and online discourse by Abigail Oakley

• Sharing the same interest as other fellow researcher : Poster by L.Y.C. Wong. Information Diffusion on Social Media: Why People Share and ‘Re-share’ Online.
• Some cool statistic on Canadian social media usage by Alexandre Sevigny and David Scholz. Social Media Reality Check 3.0

SMSociety14

I will be at the poster session for the Social Media & Society International Conference (September 27-28, Toronto)

Title: Sharing online videos for deeper interaction among friends

ABSTRACT

Background: The phenomenon of sharing content on social network sites has been widely explored in communication and Internet studies. Many authors recognize the importance of social connections between individuals, but they do not explain why and how users share content (Haridakis & Hanson, 2009; Jenkins, Ford, Green, & Green, 2012). Moreover, since these social connections are made visible by social media platforms, specific topics have been studied by such as: impression management and self-presentation (boyd & Ellison, 2007), issues of disclosing personal information, building and maintaining network (Caers et al., 2013).

Objective: However, maintaining one’s network, especially friendship, can be done in a less visible manner on social network sites. This paper analyses how sharing online videos is used to build and maintain friendship bonds between young adults.

Videos are an unavoidable Internet phenomenon (Purcell, 2010). Videos move from one site to another, from computer to phone, they are spread through word of mouth, and broadcast on television. Distributing a link to a video clip is often called sharing, users are enthusiastic about sharing audiovisual content (Cesar et al., 2008) ,and the numbers of shares ─ of online adults who watch videos on video-sharing sites ─ has nearly doubled since 2006 (Madden, 2009). Since sharing is at the heart of social media sites, there is a strong link between watching online videos and interpersonal communication (Oumard, Mirza, Kroy, & Chorianopoulos, 2008).

Methods: The data used in this paper are from semi-structured and open interviews. I proceed by conducting three interviews per participant, allowing the construction of a dialogue. During the first interview, I asked participants to simply describe their everyday experiences related to online videos. A second interview allowed me to elaborate on some details. The last meeting was directly inspired by the notion of reflective practices (Finlay, 2002), as researcher and participant discussed the initial interpretations and the research process.

Results: Far from being simply a vehicle for self-presentation, participants only share publically videos that will be of interest to everybody. Most of the time, they share online video to specific friends according to specific events or contexts. This paper illustrates how users express emotion, how sharing a video is a form of paying attention to others, how information, feelings or personal experiences can be shared through a YouTube link. It goes on to argue that video serves as a complementary channel of communication ─ sometimes the only one, sometimes as a reinforcement for a conversation ─ blurring even more the already fading boundary between online and offline interaction.

Conclusions: The paper concludes by suggesting that current research needs to go beyond examining what is visible on social network sites in order to understand how sharing communicates something about relationships between people.

References: 

Bondad-Brown, B., Rice, R., & Pearce, K. E. (2011). A Uses and Gratifications and Social Media Approach to Understanding Online Video Use and Content Recommendations. Paper presented at the ICA, Boston.

boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Caers, R., Feyter, T. D., Couck, M. D., Stough, T., Vigna, C., & Bois, C. D. (2013). Facebook: A literature review. New Media & Society, 15(6), 982-1002.

Cesar, P., Bulterman, D. C. A., Geerts, D., Jansen, J., Knoche, H., & Seager, W. (2008). Enhancing social sharing of videos: fragment, annotate, enrich, and share Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp. 11–20). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2009). Social Interaction and Co-Viewing With YouTube: Blending Mass Communication Reception and Social Connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 317-335.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., Green, J., & Green, J. B. (2012). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture: NYU Press.

Madden, M., Project, P. I., & American, L. (2009). The audience for online video-sharing sites shoots up. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Oumard, M., Mirza, D., Kroy, J., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2008). A cultural probes study on video sharing and social communication on the internet Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts (pp. 142–148 ). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

Purcell, K. (2010). The state of online video: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Partager pour s’exprimer

Le jeudi 20 mars 2014 j’ai présenté au colloque interuniversitaire de l’AEMDC (l’Association des étudiants (es) à la maîtrise et au doctorat en communication de l’UQAM) J’étais dans le panel sur la présentation de soi.

Voici un résumé de ma présentation sur le partage de vidéo comme moyen d’expression: Depuis l’apparition du Web 2.0, beaucoup d’attention a été portée sur les notions telles que la présentation de soi, la surveillance et le voyeurisme, mais je suggère que d’autres aspects seraient profitables à explorer comme celle du partage. Cette communication invite à s’intéresser aux pratiques communicationnelles des internautes à travers le partage de vidéo en ligne. En effet, en 2013, 78 % des internautes regardent ou téléchargent des vidéos en ligne (Purcell, 2013). En 2011, 500 tweets publiés par minute contenaient un lien YouTube, et plus de 150 ans vidéo YouTube ont été visionnés sur Facebook chaque jour (Li, Wang, Liu, & Xu, 2012).

Le partage de lien YouTube sur Twitter et Facebook

Qu’est-ce qui motive les internautes à autant partager des vidéos en ligne ?

Concernant les réseaux sociaux numériques, beaucoup de gens partagent des vidéos pour vanter leur accomplissement de découverte ou recommander un contenu (Bondad-Brown, Rice, & Pearce, 2012). Cette communication montrera que d’autres motivations existent. Nous verrons comment le partage de vidéos s’imbrique dans une danse complexe entre contenus, individus et contextes à travers des exemples d’internautes exprimant émotion, idée, et argument. Plus précisément, nous explorons comment le partage de vidéo est plus qu’une présentation de soi ou une recommandation, mais une forme d’ouverture aux autres.

• Les internautes partagent des vidéos en ligne pour exprimer

Leurs goûts
Leur valeurs
Leurs émotions

• Les internautes veulent partager l’émotion ressentie par le visionnement de la vidéo :

 Je pense qu’’il attendait la même réaction, un genre de ah ! » (Nathalie, 3e entrevue).

• Les internautes utlisent les vidéos en ligne pour s’exprimer au-delà des mots

On a eu une discussion avec des mots beaucoup plus simple, mais j’ai saisi qu’il avait compris ce que je voulais dire, parce qu’on avait la même façon de s’expliquer les choses. Oui, c’est poétique. C’est très beau.  (Sandrine, 3e entrevue)

Quelques motivations à partager

 

 

Let’s talk about blog : Minor forms of academic communication

At the WSSF, I assisted at one really interesting panel on blogging 

Loïc Le Pape  described the creation of a blog on the Hypotheses platform in relation to his position as a “young academic” and drawing on his experience of academic blogging.

Andre Gunthert made an important point about why scholar blog. It is for conversation, a need to discuss ideas. Even when there are no comments on his blog, he still talk about it with colleagues, making them “silent conversation”.

Marin Dacos presented his view on the lack of digital infrastructures in social science. Just because things are virtual does not mean it is totally immaterial.

Arthur Charpentier explained how his blog provided the opportunity to publish research studies in an unconventional form. This enables journalist to read about his research and actually understand it.  Maybe blogging can revamp the relationship between science and society, simply by making research more comprehensible to others.I know that I wont be able to read his statistical papers, because it is not in my field. Blogging is also a good way for academics to get to know other disciplines

WSSF 2013

This October will be held the WORLD SOCIAL SCIENCE FORUM in Montreal.

source : worldsocialscience.org

Scholars from all over the world and across disciplines will address the ways in which digital technologies are being developed and used, and how they are transforming different spheres of social life and social sciences. I will be part of one exciting panel on the engagement of  ordinary user in science.

Participatory Science on the Web : The Re-enchantment of Science by Online Collectives

The participatory Web (Web 2.0) enables and encourages ordinary citizens to participate in developing and sharing content online. In the sciences, new connections between amateurs and scientists are stimulating public interest in science. They are also changing the way scientific knowledge is produced in some fields. By examining four cases in the natural sciences, this panel proposes an examination of the rearticulation of relationships between amateurs and scientists and the role of Web platforms in providing providing spaces where different registers of knowledge co-exist. Our cases clearly illustrate the contribution of amateurs to producing, not only data for analysis by scientists, but also in shaping research questions and directions. This line of questioning is a specific examination within the larger field of the ways in which digital tools are profoundly transforming the scientific knowledge production process. The presentations in our interdisciplinary panel will examine these new partnerships in the fields of climate research, biomolecular research, botany and ecology from the perspectives of both scientists and amateur contributors.

Coordinator: Dr. Lorna Heaton
Organization/Institution: Université de Montréal
Schedule: Monday, October 14, 2013 – 09:00 – 10:45
Room: 519AB

As part of this panel my colleagues (Lorna Heaton,Xiao Liu,Florence Millerand ) and I will present a paper on the Changing Naturalist Practices: Engagement Around a Giant Grasshopper at ONEM

source : ONEM

We present a case study of a participatory science project that involved collecting observations of a giant grasshopper and registering them online. Using a qualitative and ethnographically informed approach, we identify a number of factors that enabled widespread participation in this naturalist inquiry, organized by Observatoire Naturaliste des Écosystèmes Méditerranéens (ONEM). Our findings illustrate how the association’s double goals of stimulating an appreciation for nature and increasing scientific knowledge of the species under investigation are articulated as both naturalists and the general public participate. We propose a hybrid model of participatory science, neither scientist-driven nor grassroots-based, which originates in a commitment to ideals of openly accessible and free access to data, a “data commons.” This case illustrates how even low-level participation (crowdsourcing type) can produce significant results – not only in terms of generating scientific knowledge, but also in increasing public engagement with science and scientific literacy.

source :ONEM

Comunicación audiovisual e Internet

On the 19th of April I did my first online conference.

In our round table about television and Internet, we were 3 participants and a moderator, Ana María Pérez Guerrero.

It was a very interesting experience since I was the only one who did not speak Spanish. Everybody was kind enough to translate and ask me questions. And I got compliments about my subject and methodology. ♥

I also try Twitting live, so that was fun too. I got 2 new followers :

@Loreneando Estudiante de Comunicación Audiovisual. Con mil proyectos en la cabeza y sin dejar de soñar. Luna de Valencia · http://www.loreneando.jimdo.com

@OmarJuanIetum  Mercenario audiovisual…

Here is my abstract : 

The phenomenon of the social web (Web 2.0) and the proliferation of devices that are always connected to the Internet, such as smartphones, are transforming Internet studies. Nowadays, studying online and offline activities separately is unthinkable, since the Internet plays such a great part of everyday life (boyd & Ellison, 2007).  The same is true about computer and telephone. For example, user can start an email on their smart phone and finish it on their computer. Reflecting on abundance of online audio-visual content, several questions may be raised: How certain video become viral? Why do people want to share certain type of video?

For this paper, I will use my current work for my PhD thesis that explores the role of online videos in interpersonal communications and groups of users. Videos are an unavoidable Internet phenomenon (Purcell, 2010). Videos move from one site to another, from computer to phone, they are spread through word of mouth, and broadcast on television. This paper examines how people decide to post a video on their Facebook wall or friend’s wall. It shows that it can be done to share information, a feeling or an experience.

Each individual has a unique practice and motivation for sharing online video, whether through a social networking site, by email, showing it directly to a friend and family member. This paper aims to better understand why ordinary people share online videos via social networking sites. The data used in this paper is from semi-structured and open interviews. I proceed by conducting three interviews per participant, allowing the construction of a dialogue. During the first interview, I asked participants to simply describe their everyday experiences related to online videos. A second interview allows me to elaborate on some details. The last meeting is directly inspired by the notion of reflective practices (Finlay, 2002) and I make a first analysis of previous meetings. Thus, researcher and participant discuss the initial interpretations and the research process.

boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209-230.

Hine, C. (2011). Towards ethnography of television on the internet: A mobile strategy for exploring mundane interpretive activities. Media, Culture & Society, 33(4), 567-582.

Purcell, K. (2010). The state of online video: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

 

TQR 2013 – Wrap up day 2

Here are the highlights of the conference.

 

The Lived Experience of a Doctoral Student: The Process of Learning and Becoming. Betina Callary

This was one of my favorite presentation.

Betina presented her lifelong learning perspective, through a reflective self-study. She shared her process of learning throughout her PhD degree. She used Jarvis (2009) concept of biography, which is part of the theory of human learning. Basically, we are in a state of constantly becoming :

We are constructing our own biography whenever we learn – whilst we live our biography is an unfinished product constantly undergoing change and development – either through experiences that we self-initiate or else through experiences which are initiated by others. (Jarvis, 2009, p. 25)

She explained how she followed Louie et al. (2003) three phases of the self-study methodology:

1. the assessment phase : why you want to engage in a critique of yourself?
2. the implementation phase : explore different issues about yourself with a journal
3. the dissemination phase : contribute to the academic discourse by sharing your result

You can read her article here : http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/callary.pdf

Glaze, J. (2002). Ph.D. study and the use of a reflective diary: A dialogue with self. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 153-166.

Jarvis, P. (2009). Learning to be a person in society. London, UK: Routledge.

Louie, B. Y., Drevdahl, D. J., Purdy, J. M., & Stackman, R. W. (2003). Advancing the scholarship of teaching through collaborative self-study. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(2), 150-171.

Moon, J. (2006). Learning journals: A handbook for reflective practice and professional development (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

✭✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

With Design in Mind: The E-Interview Research Framework. Janet Salmons

The E-Interview Research Framework (Salmons, 2012) is a tool for analyzing a study’s research design, ethical issues and approach for using text-based, visual or virtual world communications technologies to collect data with interviews and related observations. The E-Interview Research Framework includes eight interrelated categories of key questions and steps that can help a researcher think through and plan an e-interview study This session will introduce the Framework and invite participants.

A new metaphor for the researcher position : The gardener

I was familiar with the 2 metaphors by Kvale (2007). He suggested that researchers may act as either miners (knowledge collection) who dig the data from participants, or as travelers (knowledge construction)who journey with participants.

Salmons (2010) suggest that we may use the metaphor of the gardener: because we may need to do some digging, some cultivating, and some weeding.

Kvale, Steiner. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Salmons, Janet E. (2010). Online Interviews in Real Time. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

http://blog.vision2lead.com/e-interviews-2/cases-in-online-interview-research/e-interview-research-framework/

http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/salmons.pdf

http://blog.vision2lead.com/

✭✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

Some useful web sites:

Inqscribe

Available for both Windows and Macintosh, InqScribe sports a deceptively simple interface, pairing your digital video and audio with a transcript editor that lets you synchronize specific portions of your transcript with corresponding time segments within the media.

It can be use for:

• Direct Transcription
• Iterative Analysis
• Timecode Tagging
• Teaching
• Presentations
• Collaborative Review
• Subtitling

http://www.inqscribe.com/

 

Timeanddate

Need to make a call to someone far away or arrange a web or video conference across different time zones?

Find the best time across time zones with this Meeting Planner.

http://www.timeanddate.com/

 

TPACK – TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

“Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org”

 

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a framework that identifies the knowledge teachers need to teach effectively with technology. The TPACK framework extends Shulman’s idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

 

http://tpack.org/

http://www.matt-koehler.com/tpack/wp-content/uploads/tpack.jpg