Problematizing the Research

There are some questions about the validity of my research. One question deals with media. The participants were only given excerpts of two different MOO logs. These excerpts were on paper and handed out in survey forms. Thus, it is possible that my results do not reflect perceptions of gender online. The participants dealt with other media (paper and face-to-face) and they may be drawing on the conventions and stereotypes of these media and not the convention of MOOs. However, few of these students were familiar with online communications media like MOOs or chats. Most use little more then email or the web. So, for these participants the media probably made little difference.

A related question is the participants themselves. Few of the survey participants have ever used MOOs. They are probably not aware of the fluidity of gender on MOOs and may not be in the same mindset as MOOers. Thus, it is possible the participants were influenced by their own perceptions (socially constructed or not) of sex and gender. Since they were not familiar with MOOs they were not treating sex and gender as experienced MOOers might. It is possible more experienced MOOers would have treated gender and sex differently had they been given the survey. Thus, it is possible that these studies do not reflect the fluidly and invisibility of gender and sex on the MOOs. It is possible that MOOers are collapsing boundaries, flattening hierarchies, and making social cues invisible. However the participants, not familiar with MOOs, are still bringing their "real world" stereotypes with them.

On the other hand, if MOOs are collapsing boundaries, flattening hierarchies, and making social cues invisible, it would seem some of this would cross over into the paper excerpts from the MOO and would influence even non-MOOers. Because it did not, it is possible the power of MOOs cannot cross media boundaries or influence non-MOOers. Or, perhaps, the MOOs are not breaking boundaries, hierarchies, and social cues.

A final question is the fact that the participants were only given excerpts from MOO logs. Not only could these excerpts have been chosen from my biases, but these excerpts may not reflect the content of the MOOs. Participants only read parts of what the MOOers where saying, instead of the whole MOO log. It is possible that if they were given the whole MOO log the participants may have had different results. They may have even had greatly problems "gendering" the statements since there would be much more to work from.