Peer Review for Emily Bess

Research Question/Roadmap
1. Does it pose a question? Does the paper identify tensions? Does it say what it’s going to do and what its point is?
• I don’t think it really poses a question but it does show her intention by saying that she wants to know why college students sign up for facebook. Again, she says that she plans to figure out why people sign up for facebook.
Theme
2. What is the quality of the content of the writing: the ideas, perceptions, and point of view? In your words, what is being said? Is it more than a collection of thoughts and observations? According to the author, why does this whole thing matter?
• I think that she is trying to say that she thinks there are many different reasons why a person would have a facebook. I do not see many of your own thoughts until the end of the paper. Consider putting your thoughts throughout your interviews.

3. Is there too much abstraction or generalization? Underline or circle this language in the paper. In other words, are there so few details, examples and explanations that it ends up dull, empty, impossible to experience? Or, perhaps even impossible to understand? Explain.
• I think that you did a good job with your examples, but maybe you could try to go more into depth about some things (what are some of the games, what is a wall, things like that).

4. Is there too little abstraction or generalization and too much clutter of details, examples, and explanations? Too little standing back for perspective? Too little forest per tree?
• I’m not really sure if this is what this question is talking about, but you do not give much of your own thought until the end. During your interviews, maybe you could put some more controversial thoughts and your own reactions.

5. What is the practical significance of the artifact? What idea does it represent?
• The practical significance of the artifact is that it shows who the person is. It shows the identity of who that person really is (or who they are claiming to be). You can also stereotype the kind of person they are just by looking at there profile picture.


6. What is the significance of Interview 1?
• I think that the significance behind the first interview was that facebook is something that can be very time consuming, but sometimes, that is not always a bad thing. He is using it to keep in close contact with people who are very close to him such as his girlfriend and other friends. Also, I think he is showing that facebook can be something that is very bad when it comes to school work. He openly admits, like most people would, he uses it to procrastinate

7. What is the significance of Interview 2?
• I think that the significance of the next interview is that facebook does not have to be something that people are addicted to. Contrary to popular belief, people can survive without facebook.

8. Are all 3 required scholarly sources developed in the conclusions?
• I do not see any of your scholarly sources in your conclusion.

9. Is all source material cited according to MLA, both parenthetically and in a Works Cited?
• There are no sources cited in the paper or the works cited page.

10. Do the conclusions satisfy the issues the study raises with complexity? How so?
• I think that the conclusion does satisfy the question that was raised. You wanted to know why people got a facebook and you found out that they wanted to keep in touch with people.

Structure
11. Is the whole thing unified? Is there a central idea to which everything pertains? What? Are there loose ends that don’t seem purposefully so, but accidently overlooked?
• I think that there is a central idea of wanting to know why people originally got on the facebook network. You do a good job describing your findings. However, in your interview with Scott, you talk about wanting to compare facebook usage to time, but you never really go into detail about it. Maybe consider doing that.

12. Are the parts arranged in a coherent, logical narrative sequence?
• I think that it is arranged in a logical order, but I think you should try to do a better job of making it flow nicely. Right now, it is question…answer…question…answer. Expand on your thoughts about the interview a little more

13. Were the paragraphs really paragraphs? Could you tell what each one was saying? Did they function as helpful and comfortable units of thought, not too much, not too little? Mark any that seem too short or too long.
• I think there are times when the paragraphs were not complete paragraphs. There were times when your question for the informant or answer from them was your entire paragraph, which was maybe only one sentence, try finding a better transition so that you can combine the two together, and again, put your thoughts in it

Language
14. Are the sentences clear and readable? Underline with a wavy line any that you find incorrect or confusing.
• I think that your sentences are good and readable. However, see paper for more

15. Are the words used correctly? List any misused words.
• I did not notice any misused words

16. Is it succinct enough? Not too long, repetitious or dull? Mark any areas for deletion.
•
17. Is it full enough? Or does the writer squeeze out the juice of human communication and spoken discourse? Is the language, even if correct, dull and indigestible? Does the writer sufficiently use the language of the subculture?
• The paper is full length but I think that most of it is just regurgitating what the informant said, you didn’t really put your own thoughts into the ethnography and that made it a little boring to read.
18. Does the diction, mood and level of formality fit with ethnography?
•
Readerly Response
Describe what was happening to you as you read. Tell which words or phrases stuck out or resonated.
• I didn’t feel anything really until the end when you started talking about people being who they really say they are. I never really thought about that so that was interesting



What happened and what are the implications?
• I don’t think that anything really happened in this paper, it was just he said, she said, I said paper.
What ideas or beliefs or feelings were brought into this piece? How do multiple points of view contribute to your understanding?
• The ideas that were brought up in this paper is that people have different reason for getting a facebook and different reasons why they get on it each day. This tells me that every person who is a part of this subculture, has a different motives.
What understanding of the culture do you have from reading this piece? What gave you this understanding?
• Again, I know that everyone has a different reason for having a facebook. Whether that reason may be talking to old friends, staying in touch with a friends who moved away, staying in touch with a significant other, etc.
The writer has introduced him/herself to you. Describe that meeting. What’s your impression? Did he thrust out his hand for you to shake? Did she sidle up next to you, but fail to look you in the eye? Did he send you a letter bomb or put his arm around your shoulder? Does it seem like the writer is standing on a cliff talking down to an audience below? What sense of the writer do you have? Formal? Casual? Intimate? Jocular? Arrogant? Are you with the writer, against her, or unsure since you don’t really know him?
• I think she is hesitant because she has never written an ethnography before. I think she would shake my hand but be a little shy at first..
Is the writer giving in?
• I think the writer is beginning to give in, but at the same time, not. She states that she is now a little more hesitant than she was before, but she is not going to delete her facebook account anytime soon
What do you want, need, or wish for
• I want to know the time differentiation. You said you wanted to know more about it but then never went into that topic!

This peer review has been partially modified from peer reviews found in Peter Elbow’s Writing with Power, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.