Hi - inspired by Nancys thoughts on the conference in Minneapolis, I thought I'd "chime in"... knowing that nobody saw me nodding my way through her e-mail when reading(oh, this text-based reader-invisible medium...): I share so many of the thoughts and impressions you are describing! Doing research on CMC, usually situated in Norway - and far from what I experience as the north-american predominant research community, I have only had the opportunity to read litterature and follow the discussions on Aoir-l (and this list has really made a big difference in being able to get a feeling of what is going on). I had been looking intensly forward to this conference - putting faces to names, hoping to get to discuss with people with similar research interests as me, getting new input and feel the brain work and change from it, especially since I missed last years' conference. And I must say I got so much out of it that I could have been satisfied with half! Like Nancy is writing, I had a similar feeling of "community" - even if I hadn't met most of the people at the conference before. I actually felt like "coming home" (I know it sounds a little halleluja, but that's what I felt!) - in some conferences/seminars you feel that you share certain perspectives , theoretical and methodological issues with the other participants/presenters, to a smaller or bigger degree, which in turn give you a feeling of belonging or not. I have been thinking of why I have this feeling- and to me I think it is not only sharing the "object of study", but also similarities in methodological approaches, focus on use and users - not the technology itself, many using critical theory as a basis, more focus on gender and/or race in a bigger degree than in other fields I relate to (and also more integrated as perspectives I think). Usually not more than two of my three "fields" or "research feet" that I'm leaning on are focused at the same time (communication/culture studies, gender studies and social scientific technology studies) - I felt that this conference gave input on all three areas - and to a large extent integrated with eachother. Maybe because the reserach field is so young (and small?), we all sort of relate to a lot of the same litterature to a greater extent - and because its relatively new have more discussions on a metalevel concerning theoretical consepts and/or the terminology on the concepts we study? It also felt satisfying that 2 (at least?) of the keynote speakers adressed gender and ethnicity issues in their speeches (I think the keynoters where really good on a whole too) Anyway - even if it *is* a research field, an interdisciplinary network or whatever (depends also on the effort put into developing it further I would say?) I am deeply grateful to all organisers of the conference and the aoir- board for making an arena for meeting and developing issues and knowledge in Internet studies. What I particularly learned and liked about the many presentations was the focus on not only what goes on on the internet as a medium (and its users and non-users) - but also; what discourses that are created *about* the Internet (in the media/society in general) as a social phenomena - and how they interrelate. I also think Lisa Nakamura made a really good point in the panel adressing Internet studies as critical studies, when pointing at why we should consider both these levels in a critical research approach of the Internet (if I understood her correctly..) - so that we also can participate and influence the discussions and negotiations on the development of the Internet and its content in the future. Another panel engaging me deeply was the one on ethical issues related to doing Internet studies, that unfortunately was on Sunday and with very few attendants. These discussions will hopefully continue on the separate discussion list made by Amy Bruckman. Anyway, I won't go into more detail about my own reflections, or this will be a very long e-mail.. But it is really nice to share a lot of common points of reference with all participants as a point of departure in future discussions (even if we probably attended quite different conferences dependent on which panels we went to). Just a few comments on the practical part as an input for next years conference in Maastricht: - Pre-conference workshops: I hope it is possible to arrange pre-conference work-shops before the conference, that will have enough seats for all who'd like to participate. It's a good way of "getting started", to be able to relate issues to own work and to get to know other participants (especially if there are no common lunch breaks) - It would be very handy if there was a list of all participants at the conference, and their e-mail adresses. In that way it would be easier to contact all the people you wanted to speak to/get paper from, but never had time to approach at the conference.. - informal evening reception and dinner was great- lots of opportunities to meet people and discuss. I'd rather have that then evening sessions with paper presentations - at least I need time to consume and reflect on all the input!(and getting in touch with others is equally important I think!) Thanks a million again, to all those people who worked so hard to arrange the conference. I can't wait to go to Maastricht! (and probably we will also be more than 2 from my country when it is in Europe!) Best regards, Janne Bromseth, PhD-student at Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (at the moment situated at Department of Communication, UiC)