The latest on the dissertation is that I’ve been furiously reworking the methodology section to better conform to what I’m actually doing, and I’m hoping to start submitting final draft versions of chapters in the next few weeks. I’m shooting for defense this spring.

The new version of the methodology discusses an interpretive analysis of the output of semantic network analysis software, instead of simply presenting the output of the SNA software as the findings. I’ll hopefully post some more updates as the semester progresses.

I’m also using a different software than Leximancer, which I originally used for my conference presentations. I’m now using a combination of Wordij and UCInet. Wordij (the link for the site is apparently not working) runs the text files and generates statistical information, then produces files that can be used by UCInet to output graphical representations of the word networks.

I’ll provide screenshots later.

In the meantime, you might be interested in the book Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age, which includes a chapter on blogs and emerging Christian communities by Katharine Sarah Moody. She mentions the research I’ve been doing, and a link to this blog.

I just sent my first “final draft” version to my adviser for him to look over before it gets the fine-tooth-comb treatment from the whole committee. Things are moving pretty quickly at this point, as I’m hoping to have a defense scheduled for mid-May.

In celebration of a turning point, here’s a pretty picture from the findings:

That’s a graphical representation of the themes discussed by 39 emerging church weblogs from the entire year of 2005, built using Leximancer software and tweaked in Photoshop for the white background.

What does it mean? Patience. All will be explained in due time.

Side note: Does anyone really think it’s feasible for publishers to charge $30-$35 for a PDF version of a journal article? Who are they kidding?

• Clearing out some text for analysis and learning to love the beauty that is GREP search patterns.
• Running files through Leximancer semantic analysis software.
• Getting the survey questionnaire finalized for submission to IRB.
• Trying to develop a weekly schedule to get all this stuff done.
• Rewriting the dissertation proposal to fit the dissertation.

Sometime soon, I’m sure I’ll need to wade back into some literature review, since the last dates in my proposal were from 2006. I shudder to think how much has been done since then.

Throwing this out there for discussion and comment. Here is the “definition” of the emerging church section I wrote in my dissertation proposal.

Gibbs and Bolger defined emerging churches succintly:

Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures … Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities. (p. 44)

In addition to Gibbs and Bolger’s definition, there are characteristics that define the movement of these churches:

• Christian: While it is possible that “emerging” religious movements exist within other religions, this researcher is not aware of any such widespread movements.
• Cross-denominational – emerging church practitioners exist among numerous Christian denominations, from Southern Baptist to Churches of Christ.
• Dual-membership: While this study focuses on the “emerging church” as a phenomenon of online community, it also exists in individual churches around the world. It is possible for a person to be a member of the emerging church movement without participating in the Internet conversation about the movement.

The emerging church movement may also be distinguished by what it is not. Other contemporary expressions of church like the Vineyard Churches or Calvary Chapel churches are not emerging. Fundamentalist churches, “seeker-sensitive” churches, or “purpose-driven” churches are also distinguished from the emerging chuch movement.

Thoughts? Additions that should be made? Has the “emerging church” morphed into something else since I wrote this?

Week 1: On Monday, I filled out a form for the IRB board at Eastern, but was unable to locate a similar form for South Carolina, so I wasn’t able to finish the first step. I have to get IRB approval from both Eastern and South Carolina before I can begin sending out surveys to the bloggers whose sites I examined in the first part of the research.

I began reexamining the earlier results I had obtained.

Other than that, not much this week, as classes got rolling and then there was the inauguration.

NEXT WEEK: Writing results from the first part of the survey in earnest. Fortunately, I have done a couple of presentations on the findings, so I have some writing already complete. I’ll probably have to edit those as I begin.

Well, I’m excited to have pulled together a group of people to serve on my dissertation committee.  I had the committee gathered when I started the research three years ago, but two of the members (including the committee chair) moved away from the University of South Carolina, so I had to reconstitute the committee.

Now, here they are:

Erik Collins, Professor at South Carolina – committee chair

Daniel Stout, Professor at UNLV – outside member

Kenneth Campbell – Professor at South Carolina – committee member

Augie Grant – Professor at South Carolina – committee member.

I have had classes with Collins (masters level law and research classes), Campbell (history seminar) and Grant (doctoral theory seminar). Dr. Stout was my committee chair before he accepted the position at UNLV two years ago.

If you’re interested in what I’m pursuing, here’s an earlier paper I did with some similar themes: The Mediahood of All Receivers. (PDF file)