Preface
Here is a set of rough notes associated with net work -- the work associated with many online learning communities.
It is worth noting that there are several ways to consider a network. It can be seen as a system of intersecting lines or channels; an interconnected system of things or people; as well as, communication with and within a group of people.
Community, on the other hand, is sometimes defined as a group of people with shared characteristics or similar interests.
One might ask, "are the two the same?"
My initial response falls in the "well, sorta...but not exactly" camp.
Communities are conventionally associated with a sociological grouping of people, plants, or animals that share an environment. There can be networks within communities, i.e., interconnections and communication shared between group members. There can be communities within networks, as in, a group of football fans or accountants who regularly interact within an interconnected system.
Perhaps, networks are better framed as the infrastructures that allow communities to maintain their existence-- the ontological, a priori of communities. (Of course I could be completely off the mark here, thus my desire to share my thinking with a larger network of thinkers, writers, and practitioners and hopefully receive some feedback.) ---
Analyzing Social Networks
Given the task of analyzing social networks, Anklem (2007) provides a useful framework that captures four critical facets: a) the network's purpose, b) its structure, c) its style, and d) its value.
Every network, be it cyber-based, face-to-face, personal or professional, has an underlying purpose, and as such, every network creates value (p. 4). More specifically, Anklam (2007) notes that the purpose of a network "relates to the value the network creates, which may not always be articulated, but can always be discovered (pp. 4-5)."
In other words, the value of the network is related to the contributions made by individual and groups of members. (Think GIGO.)
Also worth considering is that within this shared space, there are a number of intangibles, i.e., variables associated with learning and meaning making, that occurs which can eventually be captured and quantified given the proper tools and lens'.
Agency
Since networks are built around human relationships, they represent a complex adaptive system, whose relationships change regularly. Each member of the network is an agent who has the capacity to make and impose choices on the world. (1) As Anklem points out, fundamentally, "Everyone in a network influences the relationships in and the outcomes of the network" (p. 5). Thus we might contend, networks possess a certain style in which participants engage one another, use a certain tone, or are more tolerant in terms of ideas, speech or behaviors than others. 
A brief aside, Hegel (1807) suggested that there is more at stake than an individual free will concerning the notion of agency. Specifically, he argues that human agency represents more of a collective, historical dynamic (historicity), as opposed to a function rising from individual behavior. Hegel reminds us that there is a power associated with the sum-of-the-parts--an important component within the larger equation that serves the network. More recently, this same notion is presented in a concept of networks dubbed as "small pieces loosely joined" by Weinberger (2002).
Value
According to Anklem (2007), successful professional networks can be deemed valuable if they can bring together "shared learning, practice, fellowship" (p. 5). As such, Anklem (2007) suggests that "Value can be derived from a network when it is reflective and generative" (p. 6). To do this, Anklam's (2007) research points to the following factors associated with successful, generative, reflective networks:
- Creating--acting, i.e., doing the (net)work
- Contributing--sharing evidence/artifacts from one's practice
- Collaborating -- engaging other participants in further discussion/reflection
- Reflecting--commenting, follow up
As such network practice is iterative. Given the above model, network practice involves taking what you've learned, applying to one's own practice, reporting back to/through the network relating your experience--how what you learned impacted your practice.
Leadership
Networks are "complex, not chaotic" (p. 6). More specifically, successful networks are built upon a foundation where the "unknown and unexpected can be welcomed and managed" (p. 6). Thus, another important factor associated with successful networks is the need for clear norms that are negotiable by members for establishing the rules for for how people engage in interactions and acknowledge the contribution of others. Perhaps more importantly, it is role of the network leaders to model these accepted/negotiated norms (p. 6). 
Summary
What is important to note is that the network is only as valuable and useful as what participants contribute. Networks can range from being loose and adaptive to rigid and prescribed. All networks serve a function and posses a purpose, structure, style, and value that also serve as ways to analyze networks. Finally, networks, whether they involve face-to-face meetings or online avatars, are about relationships--some are productive and professional, some are personal and quixotic. As such professional practice networks require organizational leadership to assist in modeling network norms and keeping the group focused.
Next steps:
Building a case for
• Communities of practice
• Leveraging technology
• Social Software
References: Anklem, P. (2007). Net work: A practical guide to creating and sustaining networks at work and in the world. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1807). The phenomenology of mind. Translated by J. B. Baillie. Retrieved 20 January 2008 from http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/Hegel%20Phen%20ToC.htm.
Weinberger, D. (2002) Small pieces loosely joined: A unified theory of the Web New York: Perseus.
Images: Jack Goodlad Community Park by vasta. peddlers or agents by Shannon K. Magnifying Glass by dsb nola.
