This shift in approach actually sounds like a really smart move. It’s interesting how stepping back from the day-to-day posts gave you more space to analyze the broader themes and internal logic of the community. I think leaning into the semiotic and philosophical angle could reveal a lot about how these spaces construct meaning and identity, maybe even more so than a purely anthropological approach would. Curious to see how you balance the two lenses as your project evolves.

I think your research is really important. Because of how censorship works in China, there is a clear divide between the internet culture in China and the larger global culture. A lot of people outside China don’t have a clear view of what everyday citizens actually think or say online. The platforms people use and the way they engage with current events are very different from what most of the world is used to.

To me this project feels like a solid step toward making that world more accessible and better understood. Looking at how people in China react to U.S. tariffs could give us a clearer sense of public opinion that isn’t filtered through state media or Western assumptions. 

This was a really thoughtful reflection. I found your point about material cost and waste especially important. It raises a larger question about whether labs should be more transparent about the value of their materials upfront to encourage careful handling, or if that approach would cause unnecessary stress for the researchers. 

Regarding the answer to the second question, I agree that failure is at times crucial to the research process. In your case, writing your own protocol and asking for advice not only improved your results but deepened your understanding of the process. I'm curious if your new protocol has been helpful for others in your lab as well.

I really like how you described the idea that the universe isn’t naturally split into academic disciplines, It’s a good reminder that our fields of study are just different lenses we use to interpret complex, interconnected problems. I think that while keeping research within these fields can make it easier to categorise if the arbitrary borders are limiting there is a lot of merit in working across them. I look forward to seeing what new methodology that you come up with!

I really liked how you brought up the idea of non ego-centric leadership. I think social media tends to promote the “great person” theory, where a single leader is portrayed as the face and driving force of an entire organization (e.g Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman…). It’s refreshing to be reminded that effective leadership can be shared, collaborative, and not always about being front and center.

1) What stuck with me most from the sessions was Pamela’s point that leadership doesn’t have to follow one fixed model throughout a project. Instead, it should adapt depending on the situation. Sometimes stepping up to lead from the front when direction is needed, and other times stepping back to let others take the spotlight. That really shifted my understanding. I used to think of leadership as a constant role, but now I see it more as a fluid and responsive process.

2) This summer, I see myself leading from within. Since I’ll be working mostly independently, I’ll be in charge of setting my own schedule and deadlines. I want to use this time to build a system that helps me stay productive while also protecting my mental well-being. It’s a chance to figure out how I work best.

3)I’m most excited to dive deep into the research and hopefully uncover something new. I’m especially looking forward to testing and learning different frameworks that can improve the accuracy and efficiency of LLMs. The idea of pushing the boundaries of what we know is what really drives me.