Research Ethics Remix

Stedman, Kyle D. “Remix Literacy and Fan Compositions.” Computers and Composition 29.2 (2012): 107-23. Print.

Because of participatory Web technologies, remixing has become a more common creative enterprise. As Stedman defines it, a remix is “any act of composition that involves the deliberate manipulation of previous passages, clips, or samples throughout a majority of the work" (108). Stedman argues that studying remixes is not especially new, but the focus tends to be on an analysis of the product. He wants to explore how the remixers do what they do—how they function in their communities and what remix literacy might entail.

This study is more ethnographic in nature, attempting to capture the processes of remixers in the context of their communities, in this case online fan communities. Stedman initially began his work with surveys distributed online to various fan communities that he was familiar with. He followed the surveys up with more in-depth interviews (via email, phone, or private online messages) with certain respondents and analysis of their texts these to highlight their rhetorical and aesthetic considerations.  But perhaps one of the most important parts of his methodology is how he positioned himself as a participant-observer within these communities. He discusses at some length how online fan communities responded to a survey dubbed “SurveyFail.” This survey was dishonest in its objectives, and the fan communities quickly labeled these researchers as outsiders, stifling their study. Stedman, instead, made the very conscious choice to be clear in his intent and to use his knowledge of these fan communities to position himself as both a researcher and an insider. Through his results, he found deep feelings of creativity and originality, significant attention to detail to create particular effects or reach certain goals, a strong sense of community and collaboration, various sources of inspiration, considerations of the relation of form/medium and content, use of a variety of appeals to audiences’ intellect and emotions, and attention to multiple purposes in composing (119). Ultimately, such considerations might be something instructors could incorporate into their classrooms to illustrate to students how some of them already employ rhetorical principles and/or how these principles exist outside the academic essay.  

Stedman’s ethnographic approach certainly suited his goals of learning what remixers do and why/how they do it, relying on the producers’ insights rather than his interpretations. Had he not done so, he might not have discovered how deeply committed these authors are to originality and creativity, for example. Though we might say his sample population may not quite allow him to postulate remix literacy’s characteristics definitively, his conclusions about their classroom applicability are tempered by his claims that remix literacy is one skill among many needed by students in the digital age. Finally, his attention to ethics provides other researchers with a host of considerations if they are to conduct online research effectively and ethically.