After reading David Silver’s introduction from Critical Cyberculture Studies (2006), I’m left with a few questions (which I think is Dr. Liza Potts’s nefarious plan). Silver makes this statement regarding however it is this scholarly endeavor might be defined:

It can be argued that a commonly shared set of theories and methodologies is a sign of an academic field’s development and sophistication. It can also be argued that such commonly held approaches signal ossification, stagnation, and a lack of imagination. I favor the side of a temporarily canonless field of study (Silver 2004). If and when the canon appears, replete with acceptable theories, methods and method0logies, I surely hope its foundations are pliable enough for whatever meets us in the future.

We have a young field of study, one that, depending on with whom one speaks, stretches back only five, ten, or fifteen years. In other words, what we have is a field of study under construction — with boundaries not yet set, with borders not yet full erected, and with a canon not yet established. As such, we have a field of study ripe for growth and twigging, becoming and re-becoming, imagined and reimagined. Now, before the mold is set, is the time for experimentation. (pp. 5-6, emphasis in original)

As Steve Jones notes, we mix, match, and borrow from all kinds of academic fields/disciplines in order to generate insight into an always-emerging site of study. What does a “canon” look like when it is focused on something that evolves at such a rapid pace? The internet now is, in many ways, not the same internet of even five years ago. Collaborative technologies on the web facilitate spaces of (kinda/sorta) user-centered participation. But not only do the technologies change rapidly, so do the nature of the networks in which users play and work.

For example, fan cultures have emerged from underground networks of hyper-stereotyped “geeks” and “nerds” into the public spotlight. Such mainstreaming has been facilitated by these technologies. And it’s also been facilitated by the marketing forces seeking to take advantage of potential revenue streams. Tweeting and live-blogging from San Diego Comic Con has taken on a life of its own as TV and movie studios use the venue to gauge fans’ reactions to upcoming seasons and films. It’s essentially free publicity, utilizing Web 2.0 infrastructures and fan participation.

Thus, from a socio-cultural perspective, the ever increasing presence of marketing forces in fan experiences alters those experiences. But it’s not always clear how they do so since we’re only beginning to understand how those experiences emerge from the intersection of interior phenomenological factors with external technological and cultural forces.