Beefing Up the Intro

Last week in class Dr. Zamora helped me come to the decision to remove the interview section of my thesis.  This was to reduce the stress of jumping through IRB’s hoops, and it was also too cut down the thesis a bit, as Dr. Zamora felt that including and analyzing interviews would make the thesis more like a dissertation in terms of length and work.  I have to say, it is a relief to have one less thing to worry about, especially something that was so vulnerable to things I cannot control, i.e. other human beings.  I had been back-and-forth with whether or not to include interviews and surveys since last semester, or possibly even the semester before that.  I felt like discourse and rhetorical analyses of community artifacts, autoethnography, and field observations just wouldn’t be enough, or perhaps like those methods alone weren’t scholarly and study-y enough.  See?  That same old doubt is still dogging me!  Dr. Zamora assured me, however, that the aforementioned methods would yield plenty of “meat” to create a substantive thesis.  Mmm… Thesis meat…

When I broke the news to one of the people I had already lined up for an interview, they were actually disappointed.  They revealed that they had been bragging to a friend earlier that same day about the planned interview.  It’s pretty neat to know that my thesis had this particular person excited, as they were the one who had first introduced me to closed species.

As I expressed in my last blog post, this week was mostly centered around finishing up the Griffia section of my Introduction.  I got a draft written of the stuff I wanted to say, but I still need to go back in and add the “proto-citations,” as a good deal of the information I wrote about was just stuff that I had learned during my time in the community.  By the way, I just made up that term: proto-citation.  That’s what I’ve decided to call the little note I make after a statement in a rough draft that states where I got the info from but is not a full, fleshed-out, formatted citation.  It’s just so I know what to cite later when I get to the next draft.

I also curated some more images, some of which I plopped right into the draft, and some of which I put into a “For Appendix” area.  I made the decision to include colorful, eye-catching examples of each species in the section that introduces them rather than just anatomical sketches and the like.  I realized that if I want readers to become as excited as I am about these creatures, I should give them examples that are demonstrative as well as fun.

Another task with which I was charged last class was to start preparing for my Lit Review proper by going back into my resources to re-familiarize myself and start working out which resources converse with which other ones.  I went back into my Zotero and read through the notes I had made for many of the entries, and in so doing I realized I needed to add another section to my Introduction.  I needed to explain to readers what the heck DeviantArt is!  I had gathered a few resources which I had noted were for that express purpose, but I somehow forgot to factor them into the outline.  I guess I fell into that trap of assuming everyone in the field would know what it was because two of my professors did.  I added that section in between my statement of purpose and my overview of the three closed species communities I’d be covering.  I began writing it based on comments my father had made when I told him about the website, but I did not finish the newborn section.  I guess that’s where I’ll pick up in the coming week, in addition to diving headfirst into the Lit Review!


Text and the CITI

At the end of our class meeting last week, I was given two main tasks for homework.  The first of these was to reach out to the OSRP department to ask about certain elements of the IRB process; the second was to write out a draft of the entire Introduction section of my thesis.  I did the first task, and I was not very pleased with the result.  I finished 2/3 of the second task.

From the response to my email to OSRP, I learned that the target population for my research would not be considered a vulnerable population, but it would be considered a high-risk population.  That was good news.  The bad news came in the answer to my second question regarding the equivalency of the NIH ethical treatment of human research subjects training and the CITI training listed on the IRB application.  As of May 2017, Kean no longer accepts the NIH training.  At first, I was a little annoyed.  I thought I’d just have to do a similar course that might take me a couple hours of my time.  When I looked into the CITI training, however, I learned that it is something for which I’d have to pay at least $60.  Or at least that’s what it looks like. I am aware of the great responsibility researchers take on when they endeavor to use human subjects in their work.  I appreciate the need for would-be researchers to learn about this responsibility.  I do not, however, appreciate having to pay $60 to be inconvenienced and learn something I was already certified (for free!) as having learned.  Maybe I sound stingy or petty, but I’m just frustrated right now…  I’m really going to have to discuss this with my professor.

As far as my Introduction, I was able to write out drafts of the overviews for two of the three communities I will be examining, GremCorps and CCCats.  This included selecting and placing the images I would like to use in those sections.  I did not get to finish the Griffia overview, as Griffia is a lot more complicated than the other two in terms of the mechanics and lore.  Unlike GremCorps and CCCats, which are focused around a single species, Griffia is actually a union of three different groups with dozens of species.  It also contains more gamified elements.  I anticipate using the coming week on the Griffia section alone.


Unearthing a Niche

I have been busy mining the Internet for resources, and I think I finally hit a rich vein!  When I switched my searches to the topic of art therapy, I came across a lot of relevant articles.  One of these articles in particular has helped me to kind of nail down the niche my research will be filling, or at least one of them.  John Swales’s Creating a Research Space (CARS) Model emphasizes the importance of establishing such a niche to answer the “so what?” of one’s research and situate it within a larger scholarly discussion. With that in mind, I am pretty excited to have a more solid idea of my niche.

In Natalie R. Carlton’s article “Digital Culture and Art Therapy,” (2014) she emphasizes the need for art therapists to better understand digital art and culture in order to best serve their clients in our current tech-focused society.  Apparently, at the time of the article’s publication, there wasn’t much research to go around about online culture, digital art, and their therapeutic potential.  Since the article isn’t that old, I am guessing that this gap still needs some more chunks of scholarship to help fill it in.  I’m going to keep looking, of course, to make sure, but the way I’m seeing it, the art therapy community is hungry for more research about art-related online participatory cultures.

The article also had a ton of cited works that I found helpful.  I’ve saved almost all of them to my computer, and I plan to read at least one a day for the next week.  I also found a lead to a book I’m either going to ask about at Kean’s library or buy for myself.  It’s called The Art Therapist’s Guide to Social Media: Connection, Community, and Creativity by Gretchen M. Miller.  It seems tailor-made for my topic, and the abstracts I’ve found for some of the chapters/articles included in it specifically mention participatory cultures!

My immediate goal is, as stated above, to read at least one article a day for the next week.  Aside from the ones I have recently saved, I have a backlog of other articles I haven’t read in many months, and I need to reacquaint myself with them.  I also want to reread Henry Jenkins’s book Participatory Culture in a Networked Era.  I have the book, but I haven’t looked at it since my leave of absence last semester. All of this is leading toward my larger goal of having my Literature Review done by the end of this semester.  If I can’t get the whole lit review done, I at least want one section of it complete: either the participatory culture part or the art therapy part.  I would also like to have my survey designed by the end of the semester.  We’ll see about that, though.  Survey design may need to be an early summer thing.

Again, I’d like to thank everyone who’s been reading, and especially those who have reached out to me with leads and resources.  I am doing my best to make you all proud!


Being Candid and Some Secondary Resources

Firstly, I want to thank you all for the positive response to my admission of mental health challenges.  It means so much to know that people in the academic community are sympathetic and supportive.

(Here comes a big, extremely disorganized, almost-stream-of-consciousness paragraph about mental health stuff.  If you want to skip directly to the research stuff, please scroll down to the third paragraph.)

Secondly, I want to apologize for the lack of activity in this blog for the past couple weeks.  I’ve, honestly, been having a difficult time lately with depressive symptoms like low motivation and hypersomnia.  The amount of effort it takes to get out of bed some days is way too large, and even then I have to fight myself every step of the way.  I don’t want to sound like I’m complaining or making excuses; I am responding to a reader request to speak more about the ways mental illness affects my work (I am now obsessively doubting whether a reader actually requested this, and trying to convince myself I’m not a narcissist).  On those bad days, the thought of getting up, bathing, eating, driving, even getting on the computer to check emails is overwhelming.  I usually have to coax myself step-by-step into acting like a functional human being.  For example, to get out of bed, I tell myself, “You just need to make it into the shower; then you can sit down and let the water roll over you.  Don’t worry about what’s after that.”  From there, it’s, “You just need to stand up and wash your hair”; “you just need to brush your teeth”; “You just need to go into the bedroom and sit on the bed with your towel”; “You just need to get dressed”; and so on and so forth…  During this whole charade, I usually have my OCD making me doubt whether I really did each thing.  Yeah, I saw myself wash my armpits; I saw the soap wash off; I can smell the soap; I did it again just in case; but what if I just imagined that I did all that?  What if I didn’t really do it, and I’m going to stink?  Knowing that your brain is going to doubt each step you take makes accomplishing things kind of daunting.  Instead of that fulfilled, “I did it!  Go me!” there’s “I know I checked this fifteen times, but did I really do it right?”  Readers, you don’t even want to know how many times I’m going to look at this same damn paragraph before I post it.  I’ve been building in at least 30 minutes to “OCD over” assignments, emails, and texts before sending them.  This is different from responsible proofreading or double checking; it’s like a nagging doubt that won’t leave once you check, and a terrible fear that if you don’t check everything “right” your identity and future are in jeopardy.  Paradoxically, that fear and doubt often makes the checking inefficient, and typos get through.  But you can’t let the OCD know that because…. well, fuck.  It knows everything I know, so I guess I’d better check more.  Soon this blog post is going to lose its original meaning and context and become less about sharing research ideas and progress, and more about putting out ridiculous mental fires that seem a lot more catastrophic than they really are.  And I just edited some stuff into this paragraph, so that dispels all the checking I’ve already done, so now I have to start reading over it from scratch.  Sometimes, the thought that I am going to have to doubt and worry about things so much makes me want to avoid doing them.  Then the depressive thoughts kick in and make me feel worthless about not having done what I’m supposed to do.  It’s like a bear killing a cognitive elk, and then ravens coming in to scavenge the carcass.  Only it’s not dead; it’s alive and trying to motivate itself to check its damn email.  The cherry on top of all this (Now I am doubting whether people are going to read this and think I’m a whiner, or conversely, that my symptoms aren’t bad enough?  That’s always fun: when the OCD makes you doubt whether or not you really have OCD.) is the urge to pick at my cuticles until they bleed.  I’ve got a little MadBall sitting here on my desk, which I use to keep myself from unconsciously picking.  They’re really good for me because of all the interesting textures the different grotesque facial features provide.  I also have a squishy caterpillar, whom my boyfriend has named Figaro, that I keep in my school bag for the same purpose.  I don’t care if people think I look stupid playing with silly, little toys all the time; it’s that or picking my fingers apart until I get infections.  MadBalls are cheaper than antibiotics.

Now that I’ve finished rambling about that, let’s talk about research!  I’ve decided I am going to slightly alter my topics of concentration.  At the encouragement of my thesis adviser, I am going to examine participatory culture in the context of mental health recovery.  This is going to take the place of my planned section on civic imagination.  So now my thesis is going to be (Now I am battling thoughts that my blog isn’t academic enough, and real scholars are going to think I’m a joke; I am going through checklists in my head of why I am a real scholar, and I will spend at least ten minutes going over the same checklist as many times as it takes to feel “okay.”) a section describing the CS communities I’m studying, a section about why they are examples of participatory cultures, and a section about the possible mental health benefits of participating in these communities.  Additionally, I am going to add one more CS community to the roster.  I will now be examining the CCCat community as well as GremCorps and Griffia.  My decision to include CCCats comes from the wealth of data (textual artifacts, visual artwork, and personal observations) I have already encountered in that community that demonstrates sensitivity and beneficence to those with mental health challenges.

(I just realized that blogging about my mental health challenges as I conduct research about participatory cultures and mental health challenges is kind of meta…  Cool!)

With those changes noted, now I will talk a bit about some resources I’ve discovered.  I already have a lot of general stuff about online communities, participatory culture, DeviantArt, etc. saved in my Zotero, but now I need to find stuff specifically looking at mental health and online participatory cultures.  I’ve just begun this search, but I’ve already found some interesting tidbits.  There are some researchers in psychology looking at ways Internet and smartphone-based interventions can help patients with mental illness:

Some are looking at whether practitioners and patients would be accepting of technologically-based supports and treatments.

Others are finding that online communities may help those with mental illnesses talk about their struggles, and could reduce stigma.

One study conducted in the Netherlands showed that “community-based participatory media projects” helped participants to gain awareness of mental illness and the ways that stress can lead to or exacerbate such illnesses.

I have not yet come across anything specifically addressing DeviantArt, closed species, or similar interest-driven online communities in this context, but I am just touching the tip of the iceberg.  I am going to continue my research, and I will report back next time with what I have found!  Thanks for reading, and for sticking with me!

Griffia Website

Hello all!  This isn’t an actual blog post; I just needed to share this awesome artifact that’s going to make parts of my research so much easier:  the official Griffia website!  It’s still in the process of being completed/polished, but there’s already a wealth of information on it.  One can learn about the universe, the species, gameplay, lexis, the moderators, and more.  You can bet your butt I’m going to be citing the heck out of this site!  I’m so excited!

Triumphant Return

Hello, and thank you, to everyone who has shown an interest in my research!  I’m back, and I owe you all an apology for falling off the face of the Earth a few months ago.  I had some major health issues last semester that forced me to take a medical leave of absence, which I’ll get into soon.  What’s important, though, is that I am feeling better now, and I am back on the thesis horse (it neighs in footnotes).  I have managed to get into this semester’s thesis seminar class, and I am stoked to continue working on my research.

Allow me to get real for a moment.

I have a bit of fear talking about this subject, as it may make me seem less desirable as a professional in my future career.  Some people might feel like I won’t make a reliable professor, and they’re entitled to that opinion, as much as it might pain me.  I feel it is worth talking about, however, as like it or not, it is a part of me, and I am not going to feel ashamed.  I’m the one who gets to decide if my issues make me unfit for academia, not anyone else, and this is my way of saying to the academic community “Yes, I have these challenges, and yes, I am still a competent scholar and educator.  Deal with it.”

Since the age of about 17 I have struggled with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Major Depression.  It has affected every facet of my life, and last semester’s leave of absence was due to a severe flare-up, or relapse, or whatever you want to call it, of my symptoms.  This was caused by the stress of grad school, and the fact that the medications I had been taking for years had lost their efficacy (yes, that’s a thing that happens).  During my absence, I went into an acute partial hospital program, where I received intensive group and individual therapy, and medication management. I continue to see my therapist on a weekly basis, and my psychiatrist on a monthly basis.  That is something I will need to do perhaps indefinitely.  I need to structure my life around this sort of routine care so I don’t wind up in crisis again.  I get into trouble when I stop participating in routine mental health care because I feel as if I have somehow “outgrown” my mental illnesses, or that I am “too smart” to be feeling the way I do.  OCD has nothing to do with maturity; it has nothing to do with willpower, or intelligence.  And neither does Depression.  To think/act otherwise is like someone trying to force their way out of Type 1 Diabetes by claiming they’re too adult to go into a hypoglycemic coma.  I am still able to achieve and succeed; I just have to be careful about how I do it, and I must be aware of things that make me vulnerable to my mind’s irrational self-cruelty.

I’ll get off my soapbox now, and I thank you all for hanging with me through that little speech.  A lot of that was important for me to verbalize, even if it may not seem directly relevant to my research.

Now, let’s get to the good stuff.

During my recovery process I was able to continue doing some informal research on closed species communities.  In fact, becoming a more active participant in the Griffia community was a big part of my healing.  It’s amazing how therapeutic the features of participatory cultures can be when one is tackling serious mental health struggles.  According to Jenkins (2009) these features are as follows:

  1. Relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement
  2. Strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations with others
  3. Some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices
  4. Members believe that their contributions matter
  5. Members feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created)

Now allow me to explain how each of these features was beneficial to me.

  1. The low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement allowed me to participate in the Griffia community without pressure or guilt.  Some days I didn’t feel like logging in at all; my mind just wasn’t in the right place to do much of anything.  Other days I was able to make a quick piece of art work or enter a simple event, like a raffle or game of chance.  I never felt like I had to do anything special to earn the right to participate or be heard.  I knew that whatever I did was enough, and that helped me to rebuild my creative identity and self-esteem.
  2. The strong support for creating and sharing made me feel like I had something to offer.  Part of Depression is feeling like one is worthless or a disappointment.  It was harder to feel that way when what artwork I was able to post received favorites and positive comments from people all over the world.
  3. The informal mentorship aspect made me feel like I was continuing to learn and achieve.  There were some prompts I did where the creator of the Griffia species allowed community members to use her personal characters.  They were grateful and encouraging to those who made art of said characters, myself included.  To earn praise from someone I admired at a time when I felt unworthy of praise really meant a lot.
  4. I definitely believed that my contributions mattered.  Around December I began making random gift art for others in the community, and it made me feel like I was helping others instead of just receiving help.  Yeah, they were just drawings, but they made people happy.  Instead of feeling like I was taking, taking, taking, as is common when one is receiving health care, I felt like I was able to give and make somebody’s day just a little brighter.
  5. I felt my social connections with other members of the community begin to strengthen the more I participated.  I began to recognize certain names and characters, and that allowed me to feel more grounded and in-control of that part of my net life.  Gaining better control of that one part of my life gave me the momentum and confidence to take control of other, more important, parts of my life.

These effects might be subjective and limited only to me, but I doubt it.  It actually makes me really curious about any other research that might exist that examines the connection between participatory cultures and mental health recovery…  I may look into that…

Some other stuff I thought was cool:

Firstly, I learned about a Tumblr blog that exists specifically to highlight and react to “drama” that occurs in CS communities.  I think this blog will be very useful for me when it comes time to discuss opposing viewpoints.  I may think CS communities are the best things since sliced bread, but a lot of other people don’t.  By reading through the criticisms posted at this massively-multi-authored blog, I can get a better sense of the negatives people find within CS communities.

Secondly, there is this.  A lot of events and activities in the Griffia community rely on a Random Number Generator (RNG) to determine results.  In light of this, a lot of community members began to jokingly pray to the RNG gods whenever they entered raffles, or other similar activities.


Presumably drawing on this community-wide joke, the creator of Griffia actually made a personified representation of the Random Number Generator into a diety for their fantasy world.  I don’t know about you, but I think that’s pretty damn cool!  It’s a great example of member participation influencing the story of a species/world, and one of the things that excites me so much about these communities.

And there you have it.

My return to research blogging has been a bit all-over-the-place, from mental health to Random Number Generators, but it still feels great to be back.  I will begin posting here more regularly as I continue my work.

Once again, thank you all for sticking with me.  I will do my best to make you proud with this thesis.





Looking for Sources in All the Right Places

This is going to be a bit shorter of a blog than usual, as only a few significant things have happened in the past week.  I have been able to locate, curate, and analyze a lot more sources, and I am feeling pretty jazzed about that.  My white whale, however, continues to elude me.  Moby Relevant-Longitudinal-Study is still splashing out there somewhere, and I am determined to find and harpoon him.  With my word harpoons.  And my computer cursor.  It’ll be epic, I swear.  Blood and greasy metadata smeared all over everything.

Zotero: Cognitive Balm for a Raw and Cluttered Mind

Prof. Levine showed us Zotero last week, and I have to say: it’s a frickin’ game changer!  I have been saving links, notes, and quotations in random word documents, then shoving them into random folders this whole time.  Being able to organize my sources and annotate them with a click is amazing.  I’m terrible at organizing things, even my own thoughts, so I am super thrilled to have Zotero doing all that work for me.  I’m really enjoying using it, and I wish I had known about it years ago.

Structured Serendipity

Applying the concept advocated by Dr. Zamora, and following the advice of my more scientifically-minded step-sister, I have branched out in my search for sources.  I’m now scouring databases for other disciplines and areas of study, typing in keywords relevant to my thesis, and seeing what comes back.  In doing this, I’ve actually found a lot of really useful information in unexpected places, as well as models for methodologies and structures.  I never imagined an article about mental health treatment in Buenos Aires, Argentina could be so relevant to my research.  Something else that has been pretty cool is seeing researchers in other fields name-dropping Howard Rheingold and Henry Jenkins.  It’s like, “Oh, I know those guys!”  It makes me feel part of a broader scholarly community, and it reinforces the fact that I’m learning things from all this research.

*Nervous Breathing*

Hi Kevin

I’m really looking forward to the video chat with Henry Jenkins today during class.  But I’m also crazy nervous.  I’m starting to get a cold, so I’m feeling a bit out of it, and I’m just so terrified of seeming stupid.  I’m willing to bet everything will go just fine, but it’s such a big deal to speak to THE participatory culture guy.  It’s very intimidating, and it’s just one more reminder of the reality of my thesis.


Something New to Puke About

Well, following the recommendation of my boss in the Writing Center, I just submitted a proposal for the PCACA 2018 National Conference. My proposed paper/presentation would be a truncated version of my thesis that covers the same topics, but less extensively than I intend for the thesis.  I’m feeling sick with anxiety right now, and I’m not even sure why.  I think my proposal was reasonably well-written, and I obviously have faith in my topic if I’m devoting my whole thesis to it…  I think I’m nervous because this makes my thesis real.  It’s not just an idea limited to class and a handful of social media contacts anymore.  Now there’s a record of it at some big academic-y warehouse of smart stuff curated by smart people who are smarter than me, and they’re going to see right through me to the fact that I know nothing.  Never have I felt more like that Golden Retriever in the lab coat.

Deep breaths…

I’m afraid that they’ll reject and laugh at my proposal.  On the other hand, I’m equally afraid of getting accepted; then I’ll have to have a full mini-thesis done by March!  What if I fuck up?  What if I can’t meet that deadline, or I get to the conference and just freeze.  Or collapse into a shuddering pile of “Yeah, it’s like, you know, and stuff”?

I know this was a step toward my goals for this research, and that’s good.  That’s huge!  But it just makes me feel so vulnerable, small, and stupid…  I’ve never even felt this way when submitting fiction to journals or lit mags.  Yes, there’s always the fear of judgment and failure, but this is somehow five times worse and more intense.  Am I not cut out for academia?  What if I fail so miserably that I become a meme?

Okay, academia.  Is this what you wanted?!  I’m gonna go hug myself in a corner now.

Purified Consumerism in the GremCorps Community: A Mini Discourse Analysis

Gaudi Baker Badass 9

Art and character by me

Grem2 species by MrGremble on DeviantArt

Last semester I coined the term “purified consumerism” to describe some of the buying/selling/trading practices I had noticed in CS communities.  “Purified consumerism” refers to an informal agreement between a seller and buyer that the product, in this case a pre-made Grem2 character design, is to be used and appreciated for its intended creative purpose, and not for its perceived value.  The role of purified consumerism in the GremCorps community came to mind as I was re-reading chapter 3 of Howard Rheingold’s Net Smart.  I came across the portion of the chapter entitled “Footprints and Profiles: How You Look to Others… and Yourself,” particularly this statement on page 139: “One strong link between mindfulness and participation is the two-part question: What impression is my digital participation deliberately giving to others?  And what impression is my digital participation unintentionally giving off?”   The unofficial code of conduct imposed by purified consumerism can make things complicated when a user decides that they want to sell, trade, or swap a character design in the GremCorps community.  Within the community, there is a definite stigma associated with selling or trading one’s Grem2 characters too often; it makes one seem to be breaking the contract of purified consumerism.  The rules of conduct for the GremCorps community even state that “Grems obtained via new-owner-only auctions and raffles cannot be traded until a period of 2 weeks has passed since the time of purchase.”  Not everyone who wants to trade or sell a character design does so heartlessly, however.  So, how do members of this community balance their desire to trade/sell a character design with their desire to not be seen as a greedy or irresponsible?

Animal Rescue Language

Firstly, and emphasizing the purified consumerism mindset, is the use of language commonly associated with animal rescue and adoption.  One journal post advertising the sale of two character designs states “This wont be first come first serve as i would prefer these go to loyal homes with people who will care for them!” This particular journal is also notable because of the large amount of money at stake (well over $300).  The fact that the seller would take the time and energy to screen their buyers, much like an animal rescue agency screens prospective adopters, is not something one usually encounters in the sale of secondhand items.  I know I’ve never seen anything like that in a Treasure Hunt. Another member says in a trading journal that they are “hoping someone out there can give [their Grem2s] the love they deserve.”  Several other trading/selling journals use the terms “permanent home” or “forever home” to describe what they would like to provide for traded designs.  By using this kind of animal rescue language, members could be trying to communicate the respect they have for the designs and their intended purpose.  After all, animal adoption and surrender is a uniquely emotional transaction of property in which money is generally a secondary concern.  They could also be trying to distance themselves from business-like language, which might be seen as cold or materialistic within the community.

Explanations Involving the Creative Process 

Another way that members of the GremCorps community protect their reputations in trading/selling journals is by providing short narratives involving their creative process surrounding the character design, and why they wish to trade or sell it.  One member provides the following explanation narrative in their trading journal: “So this is slightly shameful as this Grem used to be my dreamy and when I got him I was like YAAAS FINALLY.  And to be honest I still do love his colors like a LOT, but after having him for a while I’ve realized I really dislike his trait combo and it isn’t very pleasing to draw for me.  I’ve thought about/attempted to change his traits to something that I like more, but the way his markings are (especially the neck fur) it just kind of works with what he has now so I feel dirty trying to mess it up.”  This explanation acknowledges the negative stigma associated with trading too quickly by saying their desire is “slightly shameful” and letting readers know that they have had the design for “a while.”  The explanation also shows that the member did attempt to use the design for its intended purpose while it was in their possession, and that they had a deep appreciation for the design aesthetically and sentimentally.

Explanations Involving Real Life Stressors or Charity

A third way members of the GremCorps community justify trading or selling a design is by explaining real life situations that require such an action.  This could include emergencies like medical/dental expenses, veterinary bills, rent, car expenses, or required travel.  It could also include charitable situations, like needing money to buy a birthday gift for a friend/family member, or the desire to donate funds to another community member in need.  These explanations show respect to other community members by implying that real-life must always come first, something that any responsible member must acknowledge.




Grab Bag(bean?)

Hello, readers. I know I said I was going to talk about the economic features of CS (this is the abbreviation I’ll be using from here on out for “closed species”) communities in my next blog post, but I’m sorry to say that’s not going to happen today. I feel like I still need to do more research before I’ll have anything intelligent to say that’s over a couple paragraphs. Please bear with me; I know a lot about CS communities, but not so much about economics, so learning the relevant terms and methods of description is an ongoing challenge. After a phone meeting last Friday, my advisor has encouraged me to look at the similarities between Creative Commons and the open-, semi-open, and closed species categories, and how these models both support an economy that works for artists/creative professionals. He has also provided a number of useful resources about Creative Commons, which I am still reading. So, yes, I am still very much looking into these economic features, as they are going to be a big part of the civic imagination portion of my thesis; but no, I’m not going to talk about them today. It, unfortunately, may be a while before I am able to talk about them on more than a surface level.

Instead, today’s blog post is going to be a kind of grab bag of stuff I’ve observed and decided upon in my research this week. Some of the topics may be related; some may not. Like I said, it’s a grab bag; we’re gonna have Starbursts, plastic army men, and party poppers all mixed together in there.

Decisions, Decisions…

This week I made two major decisions regarding my thesis: one in regard to content, and the other in regard to structure. Content-wise, I have decided to primarily focus on two CS communities: GremCorps and the Griffia affiliated groups. I still intend to occasionally speak about other CS communities, but only to discuss features that aren’t as explicitly demonstrated in the primary two. I think this narrowing of scope will make things easier for readers, and also for myself as I continue my research. Additionally, these two CS communities are both highly active, deeply developed, and well-run, but they operate in different ways. The Griffia groups follow an ARPG (Art Role Playing Game) model, in which users complete art, writing, or socially-based quests to earn things for themselves or their characters. GremCorps follows a less structured, but no less immersive or inspiring, model where users can choose to follow prompts or do whatever they want with their characters (as long as it fits within the species rules and lore).

In regard to structure, I have decided to remove the “CS as E-lit” section from my thesis to focus on “CS Communities as Participatory Culture” and “CS Communities as Civic Imagination.” Including the E-Lit section would make the paper far too large, and it would require a lot of research that would not really apply to the other sections. Perhaps some day down the road I’ll write another paper about CS and E-Lit, as it really is a fascinating aspect of these virtual communities, but not in my thesis. This decision renders some of the sources and research I’ve already found/done unusable, but that’s okay.


With my decision to focus on the Griffia community as one of my primary subjects, I amped up my participation in one of its groups. For months, I have been a casual lurker in this community with some awareness of what they had to offer; this week I took the plunge and became a full participant. I have already discovered a lot of things I didn’t realize before. For instance, the Griffia community has a number of Twitter accounts: one is for main community info, and the others are accounts belonging to characters in the species universe. I followed four of these Griffia accounts with my own Twitter, so now I can see the way the community uses a social media platform other than DeviantArt to communicate and expand the story of their species.

Griffia 101

Before I continue, I’d better explain a little about Griffia, as the community does not just focus on one closed species, and is actually three groups united into one larger group. Griffia refers to a fictional universe populated by a number of closed species, each of them with a different role and status. Many, but not all, of the species in Griffia were originally created by a DeviantArt user called griffsnuff, who has received awards from DeviantArt itself for being such an influential and prolific member of the site. Griffsnuff teamed up with other species creators and users to flesh out the Griffia universe, delegating the primary development and governing of some species, and their associated continents in the Griffia universe, to different creators, artists, writers, and moderators. As of right now, Griffia has four dominant species: Bagbeans, Kryptoxes, Perfaunts, and Fornlee. There are also Casters and Guardians, which seem to have many of the same rights and privileges as the primary four, but I am not sure yet if they’re considered a dominant species or not. Much about the Fornlee is still in development, but Bagbeans, Kryptoxes, and Perfaunts all have a designated continent and group. The Bagbean group is just called Bagbeans, and the Bagbean continent is Beania. The Bagbean group is also the main Griffia group, and it provides information and resources applicable to all the affiliated groups. The Kryptox group is called FluffleTales, and the Kryptox continent is Fluffia. The Perfaunt group is Anubian Empire, and the Perfaunt continent is Capria. Other species live on each of these continents as well, but there are too many to name here. Instead, see this list for a complete index of species and their statuses in Griffia. The term “Griffian” is used to refer to any species living in the Griffia universe.

Art Streams: Entertainment, Learning, Socializing, Buying

This weekend, I participated in my first Griffia Art Stream. It took place on Picarto, but an announcement about the stream and a link to it was posted on DeviantArt. In this live video stream, one of the Griffia creators was broadcasting their artistic process as they worked on Griffian pre-made character designs. They showed a live feed of their computer screen, with one window open to their preferred digital art program, and another window on the side playing movies. Because they used the Picarto platform, there was a chat box to the side of the video feed, where everyone who had come to watch the stream, and the creator themselves, could communicate via text.

Kryptox Stream Confidential

Screenshot of the art stream in which I participated.  I have blocked out all screennames/avatars and monetary information to protect the privacy of community members.

Viewers, myself included, watched as this particular creator took character designs from rough sketch through lining, coloring, and detailing. Being able to see an artist’s entire art process is not only interesting for hobbyists, but a wonderful learning opportunity for those pursuing a visual arts education. The opportunity to speak to the artist and ask questions at the same time enhances the educational value even more.

After completing some artwork, the creator put four custom character design slots up for sale via the chat window. This was an exclusive opportunity for people in the stream, and I was among the four users who grabbed a slot. I had been trying to obtain a Griffian character for awhile without success because pre-made designs/slots either sold out too quickly, were too expensive, or were not designs that appealed to me/for which I felt I could develop a character. The creator provided their PayPal (although Griffian currency, earned by doing prompts, making art, participating in events, etc., can usually be used to purchase the slots as well, this time was real money only) information to the users who had claimed slots, confirmed their payments, and then asked the users the theme and gender they wanted for their custom character. Some users decided to pay extra in order to request special features and mutations for their design. Everyone who purchased a slot got to see their new character created before their eyes during the stream, something which I found pretty magical, and which made me feel even more connected to the design. After completion of a character design, the user who had commissioned it thanked and usually complimented the creator. The creator then assigned a registration number to the design and uploaded it to the community at large. As the creator worked on one user’s design, the other users demonstrated patience and a sense of camaraderie. They congratulated those who had bought slots on their new characters and commented about features of the new characters that they found cute or beautiful. Some suggested their existing character becoming friends with a user’s new character, or helped the user come up with a name for their new character. No one complained about not getting a slot or acted jealously toward the users who did.

Some other notable things occurred on the social level during the art stream. Firstly, I was surprised to see how diverse the group of users chatting was. I can confirm that there were users from at least three different continents (North America, Europe, and Australia) in the stream. The range in ages was also pretty great. Some users in the chat revealed themselves to be high school students, college students, grad students, or working professionals. A user complaining about homework commiserated with a user complaining about audit reports, while both commented on the color palette the creator had chosen for a character’s hair. I was surprised to read a certain user, who had revealed themselves to be a high school student procrastinating on an essay, say that they “[hated] writing” because I knew this user and their creative work; they had developed very in-depth stories for their CS characters. The disconnect between a love of storytelling and a hatred for writing was a bit jarring to me, but it showed me how participation in a CS community can provide a creative outlet and a safe place to practice literacy skills for adolescents with similar inclinations. Some other users and I offered the first user some writing tips and empathy, both of which can also be very useful in helping an adolescent develop traditional literacy skills. During the stream, I also got to witness the way this community deals with conflict. An anonymous user, who used a screenname which profanely mocked the streaming creator’s screenname, tried to enter the chat and insult the creator and the community. Community members did not respond to the malicious user, aside from expressions of shock (“WTF?” “o_o” etc.), and the creator quickly acted to ban the malicious user. Throughout the stream, the malicious user tried to re-enter the chat several times using different, but similar screennames, and each time the process was the same. Users did not engage and they waited for the creator to ban the malicious user. After the malicious user was gone, some community members made comments like “It’s sad that some people have nothing better to do,” but none of them responded to the malicious user’s insults with more insults. This struck me as a uniquely civil method of conflict resolution. I’m not sure if users had previously agreed on such a protocol in other streams in which I hadn’t participated, or if this protocol just emerged spontaneously.

I also found it fascinating that the creator included a window with movies playing during the stream. While I participated, the stream played either three or four (I lost track) horror movies and two episodes of TV shows. Users in the chat sometimes discussed the movies/shows, and it seems as if they were meant as an extra bit of entertainment for those participating in the stream. Sometimes the discussions about the movies took on added depth as users discussed genre conventions, reviewed the visuals or story of a given film, or shared personal experiences related to a given film.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the time I spent in the Griffia art stream. I also feel like my observations have provided a lot of data for me to work with. This does raise some questions, though. Am I allowed to use personal observations like those I wrote about in this blog post in my thesis? How would I cite a live video stream? Do I need to know the usernames of every person involved and get their permission to talk about what occurred during the stream? Have I already broken the rules by talking about it in my blog?  Do I need to delete this post?