Whoa.Nu: (Re)Constructing and Learning Swedish Hip-Hop Online

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting and timely study that investigated the evolution of an online Hip Hop community and how it evolved over time. The manuscript is well written and the research documented with some accuracy. However, there are some important major problems that I invite the author to address. In the following, I list the significant concerns and provide indications for revision:

1) The major problem of the study is the lack of a strong theoretical background. Although the author cites studies about informal learning in music, there is also a need to deepen the theme of Informal Learning also in reference to social media. From this point of view, I suggest considering the following studies:

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.

Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41, 6–30.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2015). Rethinking Learning Spaces: Networks, Structures, and Possibilities for Learning in the Twenty-first Century. Communication Research and Practice, 1(4), 292–306.

Haythornthwaite, C., Kumar, P., Gruzd, A., Gilbert, S., Esteve del Valle, M., & Paulin, D. (2018). Learning in the wild: coding for learning and practice on Reddit. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(3), 219-235.

In particular, the last one provides grounds for an approach based on "learning in the wild" in social media.

 

2) I strongly recommend presenting the results as a response to the two research questions and to discuss their presentation in a Discussion section. Overall, despite the interesting results of the study, the author should discuss them in light of the related literature and give indications for practice and future research. Limitations of the study should be added as well.

3) I advise adding more information about the methodology, specifically the categories derived from the critical discourse analysis and issues of coding reliability.

4) Minor remarks: 

a) In the abstract, I suggest to add a synthesis of the main results. 

b) I suggest to reorganize the first two main sections as follows: Introduction ("Swedish national broadcasting radio woke me up November 1st 2012 with the news that the hip-20 hop community Whoa.nu was closing down. 61 000 active participants where suddenly without a 21 home. As Cleo, a famous  [... ] implications from studying such a learning community can be of 44 interest for educators in different kinds of institutions – particularly those which focus musical 45 learning and learning of other arts.); Related literature ("Coming from the field of music educational research, this research departs from a curiosity of 47 learning processes in less institutional subcultural groups such as what can be seen in Whoa.nu. Since the turn of the century, the research [...] The conclusion of the article is still not to keep on teaching as always before, but rather to analyse 81 less institutional learning practices in order to carefully adapt these to institutional teaching and learning". Web of understanding. Context of the research ("Whoa.nu represents a unique platform for analysing the development of informal online learning.  Through looking at Whoa.nu it is possible to make an analysis of a longitudinal empirical material  of 13 years of identity construction and learning. This represents a unique window into a web of 86 rhizomatic changes socially, individually, vertically, horizontally, in time and (virtual) space. The  analysis will depart from a combination of a Deluezian and a Deweyan perspective on 88 education and art. This article will depart from interviews with the persons who were running the  site the last seven years. The article is written from a 2020 perspective where the development of hip-hop has grown from  nothing to the most popular genre (most commercially successful) in less than 50 years29. The story of Whoa begins just at the time when hip-hop in Sweden has started to get some public recognition,  in the mid-nineties, and ends in the mid 2010s when hip-hop is on the last step towards becoming 94 the most popular genre among youth globally").

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper reported an avarage case. The research method is well combined whit the structure of the Report. enought scientific is the approach of the results and the discussion is well organized into the results paragraph.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

 

Thank you for positive comments!

Reviewer 3 Report

The article tells a tale about the online music community Whoa.nu and engages in a retrospective reflection on the relationship between the community and the wider field of the Swedish hip-hop scene during the first decade of the new millennium. A leading idea of the article appears to be that the time period (2000–2013) during which the online community thrived was significant and unique not only in terms of the community itself (as a special interests group as opposed to social media fora with more general interests), but also for the journey of Swedish hip-hop from an underground to mainstream phenomenon. It is clear that the writer(s) is an expert in the field and offers multiple interesting viewpoints and conclusions especially towards the end of the article.

Unfortunately, however, there is a significant disparity between these conclusions and the actual research study presented in the manuscript. Although the writer may be correct in their suggestions (such as that related to learning opportunities provided by the community, or the institutionalisation of hip-hop in Sweden), these conclusions are not actually drawn from the research findings – or, at least those findings are not properly reported in the article. Based on two interviews conducted with two members (who at some stage had become administrators) of the community and some other, non-specified material, the article provides a story from a specific point of view. The story is anecdotal, personal and experiential, and would, perhaps, make an interesting read if published as a narrative essay, for instance. But to claim the piece as a research based on the “analysis of a longitudinal empirical material” (p. 2) addressing the two questions (p. 1) and bringing ”insights into how musical learning can happen outside of institutions and also how Swedish hip-hop has grown from subculture to mainstream” is simply an assertion with no grounds. To address the (what I understand as) aims of providing an analysis of “the process how any upcoming subculture is becoming main stream, how learning in subcultures can take place and find its forms through whatever means available before being merged with the hegemonic culture – or as with hip-hop – becoming the hegemonic popular culture” (p. 7) would have required a completely different kind of research design (incl. methods, data etc.) as well as a much more intimate relationship with relevant research literature and theories so as to help the researcher(s) to thoroughly investigate the phenomena and contextualise it in the wider field of (music) educational research.

Should the writer(s) decide to continue to work on the manuscript, I advise them to reformulate the overall research aim and the related research questions in a way that can be addressed within the limits of this research data. To improve the reliability of the study, a more specific description of the data should be provided including the reflection on the limitations of the data (including an explanation why the interviews are analysed almost 7 years after they were conducted!). Furthermore, key concepts should be defined clearly and in connection to relevant research literature. I advise the writer(s) to clearly show how the arguments presented (e.g. the argument on the nature and purpose of the school, p.6) are grounded in previous research and to draw conclusions on the research findings that are clearly presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic for the article is very interesting, and highlights the site whoa.nu as part of Swedish digital/platform music history (which is perhaps even part of emerging "internet nostalgia"?). My main concern has to do with focus, which must be made more clear. My suggestion is that the focus should be directed to aspects of digital learning processes related to music, and instead have hip hop and Whoa constitute one such (historical) example (rather than laying the emphasis on hip hop, as in the current version).

Learning processes that can be further empirically highlighted is related to operating a platform, and being active in a digital community by  moderating content and maintaining the site. It should be emphasized that the interviewees perspectives differs from the "traditional" visitor to the site. 

Rather than the perspective that whoa.nu is seen as a specific “place where Swedish Hip hop has evolved and changed its regional frames and by that its own identity.” it should rather be more clearly situated and contextualized in a specific time, before the influx of other platforms to Sweden (i.e lines 92-95: …thus making the emergence of hiphop in Sweden intertwined with digitalization, perhaps even ‘ahead of time’ in relation to Facebook?). 

Regarding the language, it is mainly the tense that is problematic to the reader, but this also relates to other comments on the timely and cultural context of the research problematic. Do distinguish clearer between the current and the retrospective in all parts of the text.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy with the revisions and I recommend accepting the study for publication. I only advise removing e.g. from some literature references in the references list.

Author Response

Thank You. This has now been done according to Your wish.

Reviewer 3 Report

I notice the writer has made some significant changes in the manuscript and it now reads much more fluently. The aim, structure, and methods are presented in a more clear and coherent way, and there is much less disparity between the study and conclusions. The limitations of the study as well as the collection and analysis of the data are sufficiently explained. I was still struggling a bit with understanding the overall research aim and the related research questions, and encourage the writer to formulate the main objective in a very clear way and to express that aim in a consistent manner throughout the article. Furthermore, although there is now more conceptual clarity, I was hoping to see closer connections drawn between the relevant research literature and this study. There is, for instance, a great amount of literature on the identity construction and peer-learning processes related specifically to online music communities (for just a few examples, see below) that could have been utilised to explain the phenomena identified in the Whoa.nu community. Finally, I suggest the manuscript to be proof-read by a native English speaking person.

Partti, H. (2014). Supporting collaboration in changing cultural landscapes: operabyyou.com as an arena for creativity in “kaleidoscope music”. In M.S. Barrett (Ed), Collaborative creative thought and practice in music (pp. 207–220). Surrey: Ashgate.

Partti, H. & Karlsen, S. (2010). Reconceptualising musical learning: new media, identity and community in music education. Music Education Research 12(4), 369–382.

Salavuo, M. (2006). Open and informal online communities as forums of collaborative musical activities and learning. British Journal of Music Education 23(3), 253–271.

Author Response

Thank you for good suggestions for improvement. I have already used Partti and her PhD thesis in the article that has many of the same arguments as in her operabyyou study, She also uses the mikseri case in her thesis. I have now developed and extended this somewhat - also in the discussion. The Salavou is now included as that is very interesting for this study. Thank you! The language has been proof read

Reviewer 4 Report

The revisions made have severely improved the quality of the manuscript. 

The abstract may however benefit from some further revisions. In current form it rather has the form of an introduction/summary.

Also, the first paragraph of the section 'Final words' needs some correction (flow of words), and also the final reflections in that paragraph are somewhat superficial. (see lines 334-339).

There are some typos/misspellings to be corrected throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank You! The abstract has been developed somewhat to include more of the educational implications. The "Final Words" paragraph has been rewritten for clarity and to fix errors. The article has been proofread