Next supervision meeting

I have my second supervision meeting on March 3rd. I want to know what to do next – I’m not expecting to be told this, there aren’t neat handouts with timescales on!

I have a bunch of potential headings for the literature review. It’s something to discuss, a framework on which to hang my reading. It has been hard at times to put a structure to it, when I have such a random collection of papers to read. Some are technical; others talk about health websites or e-commerce; I’ve got international surveys, statistics, and studies. What I haven’t got is a core collection of UK-based discussions.

 Headings

• utopian vs dystopian

• online religion vs religion online – Helland

Authority

• changes in the authority over the sacred text, its format and delivery

• internet used to attack Christian theology

• undermining authority – traditional hierarchy vs internet peer to peer – possibility of wrong information out there

Ritual

• is virtually meeting inferior to real meeting

• is this actually about having all singing all dancing multimedia accessible virtual worship (with bells on) or just about continuing to do what churches have always done, but with a web based shop window as well as a physical location…

• it’s about the ritual and community of religion and the academic voice does not allow for the discussion of the supernatural ritual vs experience

• Hutchinson 2007 p254… the future of online religious activity depends on the ability of the Internet to enable recognisable religious experiences to take place

 Identity

• are virtual rituals or ones performed remotely still legitimate?

“some practices are transformed by the technology, and may detract from the sense of a religious gathering: verbal exchanges become shorter, emotional solidarity with co-participants is weaker, and there is less orderliness to the prayer meetings” – Schroeder, Heather & Lee 1998

• expectation that the internet would be revolutionary and all sorts of dreary old fashioned face to face communications would be swept aside

   

• anonymity reduces responsibility – Clough 2002 in Hutchings 2007

• real religious affiliations are part of everyday life so it’s not suprising that they were transferred to digital networks

(“online community becomes a supplement for individuals seeking to extend their religious practice into their daily technological uses” – C&C 2005 p275)

• anonymity/ flexibility of space

• space for dissent / non conformism

• gender/ orientation free space

• public fora – cheap

Community / relationships

• communities brought together – diaspora – Helland

• would digital networks affect the nature and quality of relationships?

‘text based and largely asynchronous’ – Dawson

• is a virtual church a legitimate form of community? Can you have a community online? – Dawson says no/ Campbell 2005 says yes

(is this a change of perception over time?)

• is virtually meeting inferior to real meeting – Dixon 1997 Cyberchurch – Dawson

• Six markers of community (relationship – care – value – intimate communication – connection – shared faith – Campbell & Caldernon 2007 referring to Campbell 2005)

• Campbell & Calderon looks at content analysis of bulletin boards on a Christian musician’s website for evidence of community – conclude that it is

• look how printing changed the world and expect the internet to have a similar information accessibility revolution

From papyrus onwards, every major development in communications has provided new channels through which the gospel is proclaimed. Cyberspace is no exception. CofE

Regional studies

• Korea

• Africa

• Israel

Church web presence in the UK

Internet use and connectivity