Category: Private (Page 9 of 11)

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Kurt Vidmer

The Article “Analysis of noise sources in colonial Philadelphia” by Boren and Roginska gives a very intriguing insight into the a non direct interaction between two historical figures: Benjamin Franklin and George Whitefield.

The the article describes how “Whitefield could be heard by more than 30,000 listeners” (Boren and Roginska, 1) using nothing more than his natural voice. As the most significant and influential figure and preacher in the First Great Awakening, he was thought to posses somewhat of an “above human” presence, leading us to believe that this claim of his voice being able to reach 30,000 people to be somewhat of an embellished claim.

However, this article divulges into Benjamin Franklins experiment taken during a Whitefield speech in Franklin’s home city of Philadelphia. Franklin used basic geometry to attempt to form an educated estimate as to the potential number of people that Whitefield’s voice was capable of reaching, eventually reaching the conclusion that his voice was capable of reaching over 30,000 people in philadelphia.

The article breaks down his mathematical reasoning, and uses formulas and knowledge of the historical context of 18th century Philadelphia to either validate or refute his conclusion, I believe eventually coming to the conclusion that more first hand knowledge of different factors was needed to make a decisive conclusion.

Although I could not follow all of the mathematical reasonings behind the research, it was very interesting to analyze how Benjamin Franklin worked to research the capabilities of Whitefield’s voice. Having one of the most famous early Americans conduct an experiment on the most famous Great Awakening preacher gives us insight as to the communication networks of the 18th century, showing how notable people kept tabs on each other.

In my classmates blog, “To be Frank about Franklin”, it is argued that Franklin’s impact on literature may not be as been as crucial as it is made out, as she says, “it could be argued that such political unrest would have caused an increase in calls for public opinion literature, Franklin or no Franklin”. However, I would argue that this article is a prime example of Franklin’s impact beyond the printing press. His roll as an innovator, newspaper pioneer, and statesmen are only a few roles in which Benjamin Franklin greatly impacted the shaping of early day America.

      

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Dr. Shrout

In her post this week, Avery summarizes Emirbayer and Goodwin’s different approaches to social network theory, and then applies them to research she is doing with the Davidson MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) program. Avery rightly notes that there are some key assumptions that underlay network analysis – most notably that we can determine intention and agency from historical actors’ participation in social networks.

In his piece on social network analysis of the American Revolution, Healy applies the techniques outlined by Emirbayer and Goodwin to what we know of the American Revolution. I will be interested to hear in class whether you found Healy’s application satisfactory, and how you might apply his methodology to other historical questions.

      

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By admin

Emirbayer and Goodwin’s 1994 survey of the state of social network analysis is thick. And long. Though critical, Emirbayer and Goodwin clearly approach network analysis with optimism; they label the increasing use of network analysis as the second transformative movement in sociological practice (1417). The authors pull out several of the assumptions underlying network analysis.

1. Relationships influence behavior (1417). Later the authors expand on this notion when describing “structural equivalence” (1422), a theory which says that one’s place in the network is the best predictor of behavior.
2. Social networks can be analyzed on multiple levels. One can look at an individual node (ego network) or look at the whole network.
3. The structure of the network can explain group dynamics (1419). For example, more densely connected networks represent high social capital as many nodes have access to many different sources of information.

The authors then discuss what they see as three different approaches to network analysis: structural determinism, structural instrumentalism, and structural constructivism. Structural constructivism holds the highest rank for Emirbayer and Goodwin, because it best acknowledges the tension between individual agency and cultural context.

***

In another class, I am working on applying social network analysis to some MOOC forum data. For that class, I read about a study which analyzed interactions on Blackboard (similar to Moodle). The authors of the study argue that online student forums with many “bridges,” students who connect otherwise disconnected groups, showcase more creativity. Thus, educators should work to identify and support bridging individuals.

However, I question the universal applicability of the study. In other words, like Emirbayer and Goodwin I think we need to put social networks in context (1441). Emirbayer and Goodwin’s emphasis on both individual agency and cultural context are extremely relevant to this educational data.

Context: How students use networks will depend on what instructions they are given. Also, at schools like Davidson where small classes facilitate rich in-person discussion, students may not be as motivated to weigh in online (aside from teacher instruction). Thus, the network yielded from the forum data will not reflect much.

Individual response: The study’s findings pivot on the understanding that “agility” in the social network represents creativity. I have a hard time believing, though, that the same students who are bridges in the classroom are also bridges online. A person’s affinities don’t neatly track to whatever medium the researcher chooses to explore.

Moral of the story: Social network analysis is a powerful tool, but employing it requires the researcher to keep asking questions to more deeply understand both individual motivation and cultural context.

      

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By admin

In general, I’m interested in using the Davidson College Archives to source primary documents for my final project.

Three specific ideas:

1. Davidson student William Ardey kept a diary from 1862-65. The files are digitized in a searchable format. I might apply social network analysis using the people the Ardey mentions in his diary.
2. Apply network analysis to the College’s collection of “Presbytery Minutes Relating to the Founding of the College” to see who emerges as a central figure in Davidson’s founding. I expect that what the Presbytery minutes reflect may be different from what historical analysts would say do to the nature and structure of the primary source.
3. Apply topic analysis to inaugural addresses of Davidson’s founding. I will try to visualize what concepts the speakers emphasize.

      

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Dr. Shrout

The pieces by Warner and Stout for this week both concern the creation of new communities – one through print and the other through speech. These are simultaneous processes, but a reader of either article on its own might be forgiven for thinking that print developed separately from oral revolutionary culture, and oral revolutionary culture separately from print.

Cordelia helpfully points out that Franklin, though written about as a seminal “man of letters” might be a product, rather than a catalyst for the rise of a “republic of letters” (the same might be said of George Whitfield, the famous Great Awakening preacher). I hope we can explore in class, though, the question of whether literary reactions are inevitable in a largely literate culture? Under what circumstances do we expect oppressed populations to respond with text, and under what circumstances to we expect them to respond orally, or with violence?

Warner certainly presents a world where reacting literarily is the norm, but I think that Stout helpfully reminds us that other forms of resistance and popular culture were also possible. I also think we might (in coming weeks) need to unpack the idea of the press as a cohesive body. Certainly the reading for next Tuesday will show that there were many different circuits of Revolutionary communication.

      

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Cordelia

In Michael Warner’s article regarding Benjamin Franklin and his role in the press of colonial America, a line that stood out to me was the following:

“By a convenient happenstance, Franklin was also in one way or another involved in each of the political crises of the three major seaports.” (112).

Though his name is forever attached to the print revolution of revolutionary America, perhaps it was not Franklin that spearheaded the press movement but the press movement that spearheaded Franklin. He moves to major cities in the midst of political turmoil and that is when the press gains major ground, however, it could be argued that such political unrest would have caused an increase in calls for public opinion literature, Franklin or no Franklin. It’s fortunate that he was there and he certainly helped the movement, but throughout history, literate populations have responded to political dissatisfaction with literature. This was also the case in America, and Franklin just so happens to be remembered alongside it.

There is no doubting the importance of print in Franklin’s life, as pointed out by Michael Warner, nor the importance of Franklin in the transformation – or really, introduction – of the press, however, I reiterate that in times of political upheaval, the literate continuously respond with writing. See the Magna Carta – see the 95 Theses.

With the large amount of literacy in the American colonies, established primarily by religious schools – Puritan or otherwise – and the impending revolution, the creation of a widespread newspaper system could perhaps be deemed inevitable. The press helped to unify the colonies through the spread of information and this unification was arguably necessary for the upcoming war so the question lies in whether this unification by the press would have been otherwise created without it.

Another parallel question to all of this lies in whether the press developed because of the political upheaval and revolution – as a method to help it along with the increased spread of information – or whether it developed on its own alongside the unrelated happenings of the world at large. Were newspapers inevitable? Or did it take the increased calls for unification in the wake of a revolution for them to develop?

      

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By admin

Eventually I will figure out how to get my collection onto the class Omeka site, but for now… here’s my new Omeka collection brought to you by the Davidson archives!

Heres the link http://avhaller.omeka.net/

      

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Dr. Shrout

The reading for today makes several sweeping arguments about American information technology from the early colonial era to the American Revolution. Centrally, he contends that early American information was top-down and restrictive, in contrast to the more open information environment of the early republic. Protestantism, Brown also posits, was central to this process.

Sherwood takes on this correlation between Protestantism and the opening up of information networks, contending that Protestantism’s central tenets were antithetical to hierarchies. I’d add to his critique another which is that not all people in early America were Protestant. I look forward to hearing more about how other religious structures would have impacted information access.

Avery continued to raise the themes that Sherwood brought up (and invoked the concept of priming, which is similar to framing). She also raises another critique – that Brown tells a story of social progress – known in history as Teleology or Whiggish history – and fails to consider challenges to that narrative of progress. I’ll add some more questions to those that Avery ended with. In a world where only propertied white men could vote, can we really talk about an informed citizenry as being pervasive? What about the information status of non-citizens?

      

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By admin

Before I opened “A Nation Transformed by Information,” I read Sherwood’s post which accuses Brown glossing over the effects of Protestantism in early America to favor Brown’s top-down interpretation of the period’s information dissemination. And thus I primed myself to expect a sleek, too-neatly-packaged history from Brown. Although I may be suffering from confirmation bias, by his second sentence Brown fulfilled my expectations.

Brown writes that the “In global terms [the information culture in early America] was an astonishing development” because “[c]olonial society had been by European standards relatively crude, even backward” (39).

My problem with Brown’s statement is that he moves too smoothly between the local and the global. Colonial American information system development was not globally astonishing, it only seems astonishing given how different America’s infrastructure was from Europe. Europeans found colonial America’s blossoming unlikely only because America’s trajectory differed from Europe’s. Brown’s worldview is solidly Euro-centric, and it irks me that he conflates European sentiments with the global.

An even bigger sin, by not clearly contextualizing the viewpoint from which he departs (17^th and 18^th century European) Brown perpetuates what anthropologists like to call the “myth of social progress” or “myth of social evolution.” Rejecting the myth of progress means rejecting phrases like “backwards” to describe cultures and instead promoting the idea that societies do not progress, but only change. Brown does not write that contemporary Europeans found America “crude” and “backward;” he writes that America paled in comparison to “European standards,” subtly yet clearly placing Europe a rung above America on the figurative ladder of progress.

Brown goes on in his chapter to posit the various political parties’ commitment to an “informed citizenry” as the main motivation for developing a robust printing and pamphlet distribution infrastructure. But Brown’s overview left me with many questions. Who were the political parties targeting? In other words, who counted as a citizen? I would have appreciated at least a mention of who the recipients of information were.

I understand that his chapter is short and meant to provide a broad-brushed version of colonial information history, but overall the lack of nuance distracted me from being able to absorb Brown’s argument.

      

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Sherwood

In chapter 2 of “A Nation Transformed by Information,” author Richard D. Brown argues that communication in the American colonies was top down. Printed goods were exclusively reserved for magistrates and merchants, and education for the gentry.

Brown’s interpretation of the colonial American information infrastructure contends with an argument I made in class on Thursday 1/22. I maintained that the American revolution was in part the result of an increasingly popular printing culture in both Europe and America that allowed for the dissemination of ideas through books like Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, John Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Government and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. This argument is largely predicated on the idea that by 1776, information was accessible. In order to defend my argument, I tried to think of some possible ways in which Protestantism may have helped undermine the top down way in which information was typically disseminated.

The hierarchical communication structure Brown describes was decidedly not Protestant. Otherwise, it would have been more accessible to the common man or woman and available for their personal interpretation. Brown concedes that the presence of Protestantism definitely improved literacy in colonial America with the intention of proliferating the Bible. Protestants believed that by studying and reflecting on the Bible one might foster a greater personal relationship with God. But Brown stops there. He seems too wrapped up in his interpretation of colonial America as a society where information was inaccessible to the common man or woman, and subsequently, he wrongfully dismisses the contribution of Protestantism as relatively inconsequential.

I would argue that by improving literacy, Protestantism allowed for the creation of a “public sphere” in colonial America, through which colonists were able to openly express their ideas, including their discontent with Britain. In her post for Tuesday 1/20, Avery put this phenomenon in anthropological terms, calling it a “feedback loop made up of the constant interaction of the individual and society.” The anecdote about Milcah Moore’s book perfectly demonstrates the kind of literate community I’m thinking of.

TL;DR: Brown oversimplifies the information infrastructure of colonial America by calling it top down. Protestant-sposored literacy encouraged an open discourse between all colonists.