Thanks to Josie Fraser for the heads up on Thomas Ryberg’s draft paper on Networked Identities. I had noted Thomas as someone with interesting ideas at Explode (look bottom right) but hadn’t yet checked out his work. He is raising some really good questions about the tension of networked individualism. I have been puzzling for some years about the best ways to understand learning and collaboration, and think that collective and individual perspectives are important. Haythornthwaite (2001; 2002) has done some very interesting work on strong and weak ties. I find her concept of multiplexity to be very useful, that media occupy the most useful niche in group communication and collaboration:
“To examine these environments requires a multiplex approach, one that examines the nature and development of group activities, the way in which multiple types of interactions are accomplished through the variety of media available for communication, and how this combines to create the collaborative environment.”
A few years ago, Blackwell published a really good book on the Internet in Everyday Life, with some good empirical studies. There is a version of the Introduction (by Wellman and Haythornthwaite) online, where you can read about particularism (to be avoided!!)
“Similarly, early studies of media use tended to consider only one medium, in isolation, and often relating to only one social context, rather than looking at use of all media and their multiple deployments (Haythornthwaite, 2001). Analyses have also often been implicitly (and somewhat Utopianly) egalitarian, rarely taking into account how differences in power and status affect how classweb communicate with each other. Throughout, analysts committed the fundamental sin of particularism, thinking of the Internet as a lived experience distinct from the rest of life.”
I like her mention of power and status, since these dimensions are often absent from analyses of the online experience.
http://classweb.lis.uiuc.edu/~haythorn/Publications/Papers/Book%20Ch
Haythornthwaite, C. 2001, 'Exploring multiplexity: Social network structures in a computer-supported distance learning class', Information Society, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 211-26.
---- 2002, 'Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media', Information Society, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 385-401.
Keywords: networked individualism, social network, strong ties, weak ties
Comments
Well, thanks for mentioning the article we have written (the co-author is Malene Charlotte Larsen, who's in my explode network also). Great articles you refer to and I think actually Malene just got hold of the book 'Internet in everyday life', which from the introduction certainly seems to be very interesting. I really like the notion of 'particularism' which we are sort of also trying to speak up against in our article; but I'll remember that term - I find it particularly good :-)
I need to look more into both the work of both Haythornthwaite and Wellman (I have read some of the studies Wellman has carried out) - so thanks for the references. These thoughts are also very much in line with some reviews of literature Sonia Livingstone has carried out - they are also very enlightening (cant remember the link right now - but there is an article available online).
I fully agree with the lack of exploring issues of power and status. I think there has been an overly focus on e.g. Communities of Practice as sort of happy-go-jolly, harmonic islands (which is not part of the theory itself :-). This is actually addressed very nicely by Vivien Hodgson and Michael Reynolds in an article as well.
You mention the work of Chris Jones and actually the article we have written originates from a symposium he arranged. It was held at last years networked learning conference. The draft will hopefully appear together with the other articles as well - actually I guess they should be read in conjunction with each other (so if some things appear not to be very fully accounted for or explained in the draft...that might be why...I hope :-)
Hi Thomas, and thanks for your lengthy comment. I was at Networked Learning 2004, and found it to be one of the best e-learning conferences I have attended.
Haythornthwaite is definitely worth following up. I don't know Sonia Livingstone's work but will follow it up on your recommendation.
Regarding a critical perspective on CoP, I am pleased that others are interested. Wenger's work is very good in parts but sometimes it's worth following the footnotes e.g. to look at Lucy Suchman's work on context and situated practice which predates his (Wenger does reference this).
As I am busy with Know and Network, our network for Women in IT, I also have to give gender a mention alongside power, as issues that should be considered.
You don't by any chance work with Jan Damsgaard - I thought of him when I read your article.
I was at the Networked Learning Conference in 2004 as well, so we might actually have met - but alas before elgg and explode to make us aware of common interests :-)
I guess actually Wenger and Suchman worked together at the Palo Alto research center? In that case I would bet her approach was a great inspiration for all of them. I really like the book 'Plans and Situated actions' and also a lot of her later work, though as I remember she is not particularly into learning theory as such (though of course theorising on human cognition is part of it). Also Jean Lave's book on 'cognition in practice' came out just after Suchman's book.
However, I think it is time well spent to read Wenger's latest research proposal 'learning for a small planet' (which can be downloaded from ewenger.com) - I think actually he takes up some of the critique that has been raised and outlines some interesting avenues for future research.
The gender perspective sounds interesting and I know that Vivien Hodgson also has worked quite a bit with this - but maybe she is a part of that network?
Unfortunately, I don't know Jan Damsgaard or his work - is he from Copenhagen Business School doing something with mobile technologies (I just quickly googled the name)?
Frances,
When I read this in one of your quotes, "Throughout, analysts committed the fundamental sin of particularism, thinking of the Internet as a lived experience distinct from the rest of life." I thought of this post... I wonder what kind of research, if any, is being done looking at the costs/benefits of a very 'webbed' life? The way we create meaningful relationships has changed... I hadn't thought of it from the approach of looking at 'power and status' before- Thank You,
Dave
Research is being done e.g. Danah Boyd on MySpace, and there is quite a literature on gaming. It's not always easy to find work that avoids utopian or dystopian perspectives (caught between wonder and gloom). I have become aware of the importance of MMORPGs and Second Life and have two students working on this. I was naively shocked to hear from an undergraduate student working (and playing) on World of Warfare that a 'casual' user is one who plays less than 20 hours a week. 19 hours does not seem very casual to me ;-)
I have a Phd student working on cultural aspects of students' VLE experiences, and (as you can see from my blog) we are working on a project on Social Networking of Women in IT.
Ther aren't enough studies like the one I reference above though, giving us rich understandings of learners' experiences in all sorts of e-spaces.