IS41820

Learning Outcomes:

1. plan, evaluate and conduct independent research that applies some of the methods and key concepts offered in this module
2. demonstrate an ability for critical analysis and evaluation of current research that draws on or reflects on digital methods
3. critically interpret and analyse new objects of research using advanced conceptual vocabulary and interdisciplinary innovative methods, both individually and in groups
4. demonstrate understanding of ethical approaches to research with digital methods

Indicative Module Content:

Course Syllabus (Note that this is subject to change):
• Week 1: Introduction to Digital Methods
• Week 2: App and interface studies
• Week 3: Algorithmic cultures 1
• Week 4: Algorithmic cultures 2
• Week 5: Tracing Digital Archives
• Week 6: Vernacular Creativity and Understanding Stuff People Make
• Week 7: Datafication and Mapping Interactions across Platforms
• Week 8: Planning your data collection and analysis & assessment information
• Week 9: Regulating for data access and social media data mining
• Week 10: Digital Research Ethics and Developing Reflexivity
• Week 11: Digital Methods research futures & assessment planning and Q&A
• Week 12: Optional drop-in sessions, details TBC

Student Effort Hours:

Approaches to Teaching and Learning:

Lectures, Critical Reading and Writing, Reflective Learning, Class Debates, class activities, in-class group work

Requirements, Exclusions and Recommendations

Not applicable to this module.

Module Requisites and Incompatibles

Not applicable to this module.
 

Assessment Strategy

 

Please see Student Jargon Buster for more information about remediation types and timing. 

Feedback Strategy/Strategies

• Feedback individually to students, post-assessment
• Group/class feedback, post-assessment

How will my Feedback be Delivered?

Not yet recorded.

Indicative Required Reading
• Burgess, J., & Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2016). Mapping sociocultural controversies across digital media platforms: One week of #gamergate on Twitter, YouTube, and Tumblr. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2016.1155338
• Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438
• Linabary, J. R., & Corple, D. J. (2019). Privacy for whom?: A feminist intervention in online research practice. Information Communication and Society, 22(10), 1447–1463. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1438492
• Marres, N. (2012). ‘The Redistribution of Methods: On Intervention in Digital Social Research, Broadly Conceived’. The Sociological Review 60: 139–65.
• Rieder, B. & Hofmann, J. (2020). 'Towards Platform Observability.' Internet Policy Review 9(4).
• Rieder, B., Matamoros-Fernández, A., & Coromina, Ò. (2018). From ranking algorithms to ‘ranking cultures’: Investigating the modulation of visibility in YouTube search results.Convergence, 24(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736982
• Rogers, R. & Lewthwaite, S. (2019). ‘Teaching Digital Methods: Interview with Richard Rogers’. Revista Diseña 14: 12– 37: https://revistadisena.uc.cl/index.php/Disena/article/view/841
• Venturini, T., Bounegru, L., Gray, J. and Rogers, R. (2018). ‘A Reality Check (List) for Digital Methods’. New Media & Society20.11: 4195–4217.

Timetabling information is displayed only for guidance purposes, relates to the current Academic Year only and is subject to change.