Nathan Rodriguez Coms 620 Response 14 March 2012 Even though we had already read the introduction to the

Ito text earlier in the semester, the appendices proved helpful in better understanding how the researchers went about collecting data. There was a heavy reliance on traditional ethnography combined with questionnaires, surveys, semistructured interviews, diary studies, observation and content analysis that took place in homes and neighborhoods, institutional spaces (schools?), networked sites and interest groups. One concept that was embarrassingly new to me was that of ecology. Id heard the term quite a bit before, used it on occasion, and understood it to mean the confluence of a variety of social, cultural and technical factors. What I had not given much thought to was that components are not separable butdynamically interrelated. While this may seem like a relatively minor aha moment, it advanced my understanding on why the term ecology enjoys a position of prominence in the literature. The authors again rely upon distinctions between levels of investment in new media, referring to genres of participation as either hanging out, messing around, or geeking out. This approach differs from a categorical approach that typically views media identities as stable entities. The genrebased approach allows the researchers to focus more on patterns of behavior rather than the medium itself, and attempts to discuss an overall package of style and form. The conclusion of the chapter expands on this notion, perhaps to no surprise, that levels of engagement by youth do not correspond with types of young people. Interviews with students reveal a deep desire to remain connected. A student, Derrick, revealed that even when teenagers and kids are hanging out in a face-to-face group, many feel the need to stay connected to other teens who are not there. Basic differences between the genres of participation are outlined, and the practice of experimentation and play, which may have been overlooked or undervalued in the past, is seen as a meaningful social exercise. Ito et al again rely upon the broad distinction between interest- and friendship-driven genres of participation, but this remains a point of contention for me personally. I think it becomes problematic to establish those two categories because there would appear to be significant blurring between the two. Something may begin as interest-driven and evolve to friendship-driven (like being introduced to a message board and sticking around for the community aspects of it), while other adventures may begin as friendship-driven (joining Facebook) and evolve to more interest-driven activities (constantly checking on Fan pages on Facebook). In short, this chapter didnt really offer much that was necessarily new, and my reservations about the distinction between interest- and friendship-driven genres of participation remain. My hope is that Ito et al are much farther ahead of the game than I am at this point, and that their reasons for crafting that distinction will become more evident in later chapters.