What are blogs for? Much more than ranting.
Writing about an entry you don't have permission to view
The response to Warwick Blogs from people who have already been blogging for a while (using other systems) highlights the fact that we are seeing a major evolution in the purpose and scope of blogging. As a response to a debate concerning this, I wrote that…
We are also seeing people using blogs in quite a different way to the traditional 'peronal soapbox' blogging. We are actively encouraging this evolution. In many cases, these new kinds of blogs don't really need comments, although they may still welcome comments. For example, I might use my blog to record a meeting in a group project. This is useful in many ways, for the group itself, and to let a wider range of people know what is going on.
Expecting every entry to demand a response or an argument is a mistake. That must be a bit of a surprise to people who have been blogging for a while. Some of the responses to Warwick Blogs that we've seen from traditional bloggers have reflected that surprise. We are, however, keen to get this message across, as the traditional approach to blogging may discourage many people from using what is essentially a general-purpose writing tool for which they need to find their own uses.
The extensive marketing campaign that we have used for the Warwick Blogs system has been motivated by the need to engage a much wider range of people in using blogs. It has focussed upon the many different ways in which the system can be used, for personal, private, social and academic purposes. From the start we recognised that there is a difficult balance to strike between building a blogging community, and getting the individuals in that community to use the software for a diverse range of purposes, 'soap-boxing' (or ranting as some people call it) being perhaps the least important of those purposes. From the evidence that we've seen so far, I think we are being successful in achieving this aim.
Robert O'Toole
10 Oct 2004 08:06
| 
Tags: E-Learning Warwick University
| 
Comments (6)
| 
Report a problem
6 comments by 2 or more people
[Skip to the latest comment]Ranting sure is fun though…
10 Oct 2004, 11:03
One of the things about blogs is that people have always said "It's mine, and I'll write what I like on it". If there are more "functional" possibilities they will exploit them, but in refreshingly unpredictable and individual ways. The only thing I think you can't do is "force" someone to blog. But that is just the most extreme example of the fact that it's a mistake to elevate functionality (what you can "do" with a blog) over identity (what you can express with a blog). Over time regular blogging (and sometimes interaction with comments) creates an identity, a kind of "virtual self". That will certainly not be a simple one to one representation of the blogger (indeed it might contain large elements of creative fiction), and has some kind of life or existence in itself.
It's the degree to which we feel a blog expresses something vital and engaged (and that might be anything from interesting links to a full-scale personal diary) that makes us want to read it and keep returning to it. Which is where regularity comes in – you don't have to blog every day, but you need to keep up a regular flow, or else the blog ceases to be "alive" and we lose interest in it.
That "identity" thing is really where rants come in. Forceful expression of our view, opinions and feelings (if we can do it without causing deliberate and nasty offence) quickly establishes who we are, what kind of personl is blogging. We don't want it all the time. But occasionally it affirms commitment to self and blog, and that's very positive. In any case, a rant doesn't need to be negative or hostile. Anthony Stones (I'm No Panda) - who wrote the great posting that Robert responded to - has a fantastic positive rant about the Governor of California - "Arnie" (http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/astones/entry/vy_not/) and a whole section of his blog is called "Arnie is King". But how much is tongue in cheek? As someone who said well before he was elected that Arnie would make a fantastic governor, I identify more strongly with a blog I already liked. But I also like the light touch, the room for difference, the humour.
The other thing is that it's no surprise that the acrimonious exchanges that you can pick up from Chris Carter's blog (http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/ccarter/entry/all_hail_this/) are mainly about music, performers and musical styles - the area in which everyone invests a huge amount of their identity, and which is highly suscptible to "counter-suggestibility". Like the cultural antagonisms of previous eras (which were often religious), people define themselves by what they like AND what they don't like - heaven help you if you like what they don't like!!! And where is it more important that most places to stamp your identity on musical matters (and/or use music as a way to create a virtual identity) than in your blog?
10 Oct 2004, 11:34
Robert O'Toole
Yes rants can be a useful (or at least quick) way of establishing a personality, but they certainly are not necessary.
I also disagree with the assumption that a blog must have an audience other than the blogger themselves, and that as a consequence regular entry writing is a requirement for a blog to be useful or interesting. Our research has shown that there are plenty of people who blog intermittently, and many who do so entirely for their own use. That has always been the case.
What we are seeing now is the emergence of people using blogs in many different ways, and in many combinations of ways. The old fashioned bloggers may continue to define the public face of blogging for a while, but as it becomes ubiqitous as a writing tool, that view will become marginalised and somewhat old fashioned.
10 Oct 2004, 17:16
I guess I do disagree quite significantly. Not that it is not possible to use a blog any way you like. But that the idea of exchanging ideas and identifying with other individuals without regard to conventional constraints of time and space is "old hat" or outdated. Autonomous development and meaning cannot be waved away with a planners' wand, and people cannot be forced to blog one way rather than another … and the clearest line of development among bloggers in the last year has been the growth of group blogs of people with common interests and outlooks. The name of the game always has been, and remains more than ever interactive creativity and authentic ouwardly directed self-expression – I think something written only for personal use is best called something else.
14 Oct 2004, 09:25
Robert O'Toole
Charles, I think we are in fact agreeing. I'm not at all saying that "the idea of exchanging ideas and identifying with other individuals without regard to conventional constraints of time and space is "old hat" or outdated". Indeed that's always an essential part of blogging. And our work does entirely promote autonomous development, in fact as part of the PDP development programme, one of its principle aims is to foster that autonomous development. All that I am saying is that there is already a "traditional" interpretation of what blogs are about, and that our system is challenging that.
There really are bloggers out there who are far too precious about the nature and purpose of blogging. They should be more open and relaxied about it.
14 Oct 2004, 09:50
Indeed. We do agree. How nice!
14 Oct 2004, 11:59
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.