February 2008 Archives
1. Upload your file (in .mp3, .aiff, etc. format) to your PASS space.
2. Link to the file from your blog. (The link will be "http://www.personal.psu/you/nameoffile.aiff.")
It's that easy!
Here's an introductory podcast for our podcasting presentation.
Wenger: "...styles and discourses are not practices in themselves. They are available material--resources that can be used in the context of various practices" (p. 129). Doesn't the style and discourse of a "community" such as Twitter and other applications/technologies/programs (SMS text messaging, radio hams, etc.) create a community of practice in and of itself? Or are those styles and discourses actually by-products of those communities? Here's the age-old chicken or the egg: does Twitter produce 140-character speech that produces a community, or does a community that uses 140-character speech produce Twitter? Of course, Twitter (as we learned) evolved from SMS text messaging, so in this case the practice of text messaging gave birth to Twitter, which became an online community. But, my question remains: Does the use of certain online styles of speech/writing (l33t, how r u, kewl, etc.) necessarily mean engagement in a practice that creates a community? In regards to my previous post, would sharing this style or discourse count as an "action" that creates such a community? Or, is it a community but not a community of practice? I would argue that it's a community of practice, and we can't ignore the other aspects of online conversations that contribute to such a practice: for example, online short-hand like "r" for "are" is a way of achieving a goal/practice/enterprise, like "having a conversation with friends" or "meeting new people." But, again, does one necessitate the other? Is "necessitate" a word? Is it a style of writing that creates a community of practice? Or is it a by-product of my trying to communicate with an academic community of practice?
I have to wonder at Nardi's and O'Day's obvious resentment and opposition to use of the word "inevitable." While I have to agree that ultimately, we--as humans--do have control over what kinds of technologies we produce and how we use them, we--as a society--have less control. The notion of "inevitability," as the authors have mentioned, is so commonplace even among "technical" people; I wonder what the general populace thinks? If the notion of "inevitability" is (as they imply) ignorant, is the general populace of society more ignorant than the "technicians"? If so, how can we possibly hope to diffuse to the masses that WE control technology and not vice versa? (There will be no diffusion if this type of discussion remains in "academese" and among scholars.)
Sweeping generalities:
I actually think there are some technologies that are inevitable. I don't see inevitability as inherently bad. The discovery of new technologies and new uses of existing technologies is part of exploration. It's what makes us human: we're innovators. We will do everything that's within our capabilities, if only just to prove that it's possible. How we choose to continue with such endeavors is within our control, but the fact that they will happen I believe is inevitable. Robots? Space stations? We're there. Are we creating cylons yet? Are we colonizing and seizing control of alien solar systems yet? No, but that choice is ours.
I have to wonder at Nardi's and O'Day's obvious resentment and opposition to use of the word "inevitable." While I have to agree that ultimately, we--as humans--do have control over what kinds of technologies we produce and how we use them, we--as a society--have less control. The notion of "inevitability," as the authors have mentioned, is so commonplace even among "technical" people; I wonder what the general populace thinks? If the notion of "inevitability" is (as they imply) ignorant, is the general populace of society more ignorant than the "technicians"? If so, how can we possibly hope to diffuse to the masses that WE control technology and not vice versa? (There will be no diffusion if this type of discussion remains in "academese" and among scholars.)
Sweeping generalities:
I actually think there are some technologies that are inevitable. I don't see inevitability as inherently bad. The discovery of new technologies and new uses of existing technologies is part of exploration. It's what makes us human: we're innovators. We will do everything that's within our capabilities, if only just to prove that it's possible. How we choose to continue with such endeavors is within our control, but the fact that they will happen I believe is inevitable. Robots? Space stations? We're there. Are we creating cylons yet? Are we colonizing and seizing control of alien solar systems yet? No, but that choice is ours.
I apologize for acting like a brat today in class. I suffered a saturation of information, wherein my brain imploded, and I lost the ability to comprehend speech. If you're reading this in Pligg or a reader, I suggest you take a moment to relocate to my blog, because I used formatting with the intent of stressing key points.
Since we often discuss definitions, allow my take for a moment; again, I apologize if this was already said during discussion, as I completely zoned out:
Someone (I believe Brett?) posited that "shared value(s)" separates a community from a community of practice. There seemed to be some agreement here. I think, though, any community must inherently share some values. People mentioned things like proximity, repeated interactions, and communication as some things that make a community a community; while this is all true, I would argue that "living in an area with which we're all familiar," "interacting with others" and "communicating with others" are all shared values that define such a community. Of course, there are other values, such as "surviving cancer" or "appreciation of World of Warcraft," etc., which could define a community. One could also argue that words like "living," "interacting," "communicating," "surviving," or "appreciating" are examples of practices, but herein lies my difference between a community and a community of practice: I would argue that a community of practice has a shared goal (yes, this was said in class), which is different than a value. I think Wenger calls this "joint enterprise." A goal implies purpose and action, and it is this last bit that I think really differentiates the two. A community of practice is active, not passive (as an ordinary community can or may be). Of course, how you define "active" is another matter altogether.
Secondly, I voiced my frustrations after what seemed like an eternity of trying to figure out and define "boundary object." I think what happened is that the term and the idea got separated from the context; this is how the words "boundary object" began to take a concrete and physical nature. I don't want to define "boundary object" here, because this is not my intention. When I said that "I don't understand 'boundary object' outside the context of 'community,'" I meant just that. How can you have a "boundary object" without a community? What else does a "boundary object" create boundaries for/around? (Obviously, no one explicitly said that boundary objects could exist without communities, but when the arguments go around in circles multiple times, this is the meaning I start to get from the conversation.) When I said "context," I didn't mean that I need concrete examples. Examples can help sometimes, but I think they muddle the definitions when the definitions haven't been set yet. (Wenger is an excellent example of this.) By "context," I mean that a term like "boundary object" has no meaning when it is not applied to "community." Wenger writes (and I agree) that "meaning exists neither in us, nor in the world, but in the dynamic relation of living in the world" (p. 54); I could cite other scholars and such who also argue that meaning--or knowledge, information, whatever--is in the connections and therefore does not exist on its own. In fact, I think this is what we discussed two weeks ago in class when Betsy proclaimed that her head hurt.
Although I heard some kind of stifled, collective moan at the time, I for one was grateful to Becci for bringing up how one's identity could define/shape/influence/affect what "boundary objects" or "reification objects" are/could be/mean. I'm pretty sure that most people were talking about boundary objects in relation to the design aspect of technologies like Twitter. For me, it would make the most sense to talk about boundary objects in relation to communities. It's only in the relations between these concepts that an idea as abstract as "boundary object"--whether it is inherently abstract or whether we made it abstract--could take any real meaning.
There's always talk about the disconnect between theory and practice. I think, in the future, we really need to focus our discussions on the three themes of Community, Identity, and Design, with an Educational Flair. Otherwise, I'm going to walk away from this class without any real benefit and with absolutely no idea of the practical applications of the theories, not to mention the technologies, we learn.
Since we often discuss definitions, allow my take for a moment; again, I apologize if this was already said during discussion, as I completely zoned out:
Someone (I believe Brett?) posited that "shared value(s)" separates a community from a community of practice. There seemed to be some agreement here. I think, though, any community must inherently share some values. People mentioned things like proximity, repeated interactions, and communication as some things that make a community a community; while this is all true, I would argue that "living in an area with which we're all familiar," "interacting with others" and "communicating with others" are all shared values that define such a community. Of course, there are other values, such as "surviving cancer" or "appreciation of World of Warcraft," etc., which could define a community. One could also argue that words like "living," "interacting," "communicating," "surviving," or "appreciating" are examples of practices, but herein lies my difference between a community and a community of practice: I would argue that a community of practice has a shared goal (yes, this was said in class), which is different than a value. I think Wenger calls this "joint enterprise." A goal implies purpose and action, and it is this last bit that I think really differentiates the two. A community of practice is active, not passive (as an ordinary community can or may be). Of course, how you define "active" is another matter altogether.
Secondly, I voiced my frustrations after what seemed like an eternity of trying to figure out and define "boundary object." I think what happened is that the term and the idea got separated from the context; this is how the words "boundary object" began to take a concrete and physical nature. I don't want to define "boundary object" here, because this is not my intention. When I said that "I don't understand 'boundary object' outside the context of 'community,'" I meant just that. How can you have a "boundary object" without a community? What else does a "boundary object" create boundaries for/around? (Obviously, no one explicitly said that boundary objects could exist without communities, but when the arguments go around in circles multiple times, this is the meaning I start to get from the conversation.) When I said "context," I didn't mean that I need concrete examples. Examples can help sometimes, but I think they muddle the definitions when the definitions haven't been set yet. (Wenger is an excellent example of this.) By "context," I mean that a term like "boundary object" has no meaning when it is not applied to "community." Wenger writes (and I agree) that "meaning exists neither in us, nor in the world, but in the dynamic relation of living in the world" (p. 54); I could cite other scholars and such who also argue that meaning--or knowledge, information, whatever--is in the connections and therefore does not exist on its own. In fact, I think this is what we discussed two weeks ago in class when Betsy proclaimed that her head hurt.
Although I heard some kind of stifled, collective moan at the time, I for one was grateful to Becci for bringing up how one's identity could define/shape/influence/affect what "boundary objects" or "reification objects" are/could be/mean. I'm pretty sure that most people were talking about boundary objects in relation to the design aspect of technologies like Twitter. For me, it would make the most sense to talk about boundary objects in relation to communities. It's only in the relations between these concepts that an idea as abstract as "boundary object"--whether it is inherently abstract or whether we made it abstract--could take any real meaning.
There's always talk about the disconnect between theory and practice. I think, in the future, we really need to focus our discussions on the three themes of Community, Identity, and Design, with an Educational Flair. Otherwise, I'm going to walk away from this class without any real benefit and with absolutely no idea of the practical applications of the theories, not to mention the technologies, we learn.
While reading Wenger, one question repeatedly arose in my mind, in several forms: Does one need to learn in order to be in a community of practice? In other words (Wenger is fond of this phrase), does practice imply learning? Can communities of practice exist where learning does not? This view is somewhat antithetical to my usual views on learning (that it is ongoing, permanent, omnipresent; that almost anything can be considered "learning"), but Wenger defines learning more in a sociohistorical sense (social theory of learning: that we learn from/through/with/because of others). Let's take Wenger's claims processing example, and say we have the same group of five claims processors who have all been there for a period of time (i.e. no newcomers) who have been working with the same forms for that time (i.e. no revisions or new software). Although the individual claims processed change, one might say these five people have fallen into a "routine," and they all know each other well enough that they have their niches in this community. What are they learning, and how? If they are not learning, are they no longer a community of practice? (I think I know how Wenger would answer these questions, but I'm curious to see how you think and whether you agree with Wenger.)
I also wonder if Rogers's (I don't know why "Rogers's" is coming up as a spelling error, because it is not!) "groups," "social system," etc. would also be considered communities, because the way Rogers describes them makes them sound like accidental communities. This is how I would have defined communities before this class; we added "interaction" as one of the necessary components of a community.
<rant> Rogers mentioned socioeconomic status as one factor affecting diffusion [of technologies]. HA! I mean, I agree. The other factors mentioned should also affect the way we view learning communities: We have [already begun] to re-think the way we diffuse information in our classrooms, because students' backgrounds, cultures, etc. affect the way they will take to (accept or reject) innovations (new information). Teachers can't walk into a classroom with their white upper-middle-class attitudes and teaching styles and expect all their students to walk away fulfilled.
</rant>
Physical design (structure) influences (gives birth to? restructures? re-forms? creates?) the community.
"We need to re-think the whole western educational system." -- Betsy, but not now.
To redesign the educational system (if this is the goal/gripe), we need to redesign our schools. This will not happen if the hierarchical systems still exist (school board? who is the board? are they really part of the community? do they properly represent the community? who choses the architects?).
...These are some of my favorite themes.
34. To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities.
35. But first, they must belong to a community.
38. Human communities are based on discourse—on human speech about human concerns.
In other words, to speak with a human voice, one must think humanly. I almost wrote "one must speak humanly," which does not have as much meaning as what I actually wrote, and also which negates bots. I like bots. ("Speaking humanly" and "having human speech" are two different ideas--or are they?)
These three shouldn't be listed as separate items, because they are really corollaries of one another. (Many of the 95 themes were, but I suppose that way, there wouldn't be an impressive number like 95.) All this is saying is that one cannot be a part of a community without participation ("share the concerns"), shared repertoire ("concerns"), mutual engagement ("share the concerns"), and joint enterprise ("share the concerns"). Come to think of it, I really like Wenger's model of the community of practice.
Dear HTML,
27. By speaking in language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep markets at bay.
Dear Web 2.0,
72. We like this new marketplace much better. In fact, we are creating it.
kthxbye
74. We are immune to advertising. Just forget it.
This is a lie.
52. Paranoia kills conversation. That's its point. But lack of open conversation kills companies.
Also not entirely true. Then again, I am basing this from the Lone Gunmen of The X-Files: Paranoia fuels conversations. I'm not sure what the lack of paranoia/open conversation would do to governments. Big Brother, maybe, but even we saw in 1984 that Big Brother didn't kill paranoia. Then again, I don't think any of this is applicable to teaching and learning. Oh well.
Oh, I forgot I was supposed to write this academically. Forgive me.
I found it difficult to understand the content of Wenger, because I could not get past all the meaningless drivel and overly ornate language (Dickens, anyone? Did Wenger also get paid by the word?). Distinguish this, differentiate that. It's interesting to note that for the entirety of chapter 1, Wenger tries to meticulously define the concepts of "participation" and "reification" when he's clearly just reifying his concepts to the audience (us, as readers). I suppose that's why there are so many examples and "clarifications": it's a shallow attempt to get the audience to take in what's being said and interpret it as one's own--to participate--when Wenger really just wants to deliver his own, concrete definitions. Yes, I say concrete, because even by defining a concept by what it is not, Wenger tries to more specifically narrow down the meanings of those concepts.
Beyond stylistic rantings, I question Wenger's decision to "reserve the term [participation] for actors who are members of social communities," to which he clearly states that he will not include computers as participants (whew, I almost wrote "participators"--that'd be my luck, in trying to write academically). This was one of our points of discussion while trying to define "community" on Team Heather: do we include bots, avatars, etc.? Such programs do actively participate in some communities, even if they are set up beforehand by a "real" person. The individuals on the other side of the conversations, whether they recognize that other as a human or as a bot, still participate in that community, and I believe Wenger argues that one cannot participate in isolation (human artifacts notwithstanding--or withstanding?). "In this regard, what I take to characterize participation is the possibility of mutual recognition." This will scare the living daylights out of some people (including me), but with the A.I. frontier ever approaching, "mutual recognition" will not be reserved to "people" of the living, breathing variety. Mutual engagement? Joint enterprise? Shared repertoire? Check, check, and check. Computers are part of our communities.
Some of Wenger's ideas to resonate with me (drivel or not). "Participation is a source of identity." Community, Identity, and Design (though I'm not sure about design) are not mutually exclusive; one cannot be defined without the other(s?). Individuals create or define their identities through participation in a community. It just makes sense. Also, "participation is not something we turn on and off"; "[They] do not cease to be claims processors at five o'clock." TAKE THAT, TURKLE!
In the context of Web 2.0
Community
: a group of people and their extensions (which may include avatars, bots, usernames, etc.) that interact with common purpose(s), idea(s), and/or intent(s).
Identity: an idea, conception, or representation of a person and/or their extensions
Design: (ideally, is a seamless integration of) form and function of a noun
I thought I could fire off some witty commentary on the readings during commercial breaks of The X-Files. That obviously didn't happen. (Who can function with the distractions of David Duchovny?)
While reading Turkle, I was reminded of our task during the last class to define "community," "identity," and "design." Turkle claims that technologies such as windows and MUDs help people to define themselves through various communities or interfaces. "[...] windows have become a powerful metaphor for thinking about the self as a multiple, distributed system. The self is no longer simply playing different roles in different settings at different times, something that a person experiences when, for example, she wakes up as a lover, makes breakfast as a mother, and drives to work as a lawyer." Apparently, windows (etc.) distinguish and separate out different aspects of our identities. I am violently opposed to this notion, as I was (somewhat) violently opposed to the definitions "we" (ahem) came up with in my previous post. Betsy wanted to define things as they are related to Web 2.0, which makes sense as a task but offends me as an idea (especially "identity," which, for whatever reason, is a very sensitive topic for me). Technology does not define me. Web 2.0 does not define me. Technology, Web 2.0, etc., is all a part of me, but they do not define me. Turkle's distinguishing between the lover, the mother, and the lawyer similarly irked me. Yes, I can have aspects of my identity that include a lover, mother, and lawyer, but I am not the sum of these parts. Maybe it's arrogant of me to believe that I am too complex to be parsed out in this manner, but I don't care.
Warning: possibly racist comments to follow
I suppose that's the American side of my upbringing (again, a part of me, but not what I would call a separate identity). I think it's funny that activity theory (i.e. Wenger's "social theory of learning") is such a novel idea in Western culture. Westerners are so deeply ingrained in their belief that the individual is king, and the community follows. No wonder it took outside influence (the socialists) to bring in something completely new and novel, like social learning, activity theory, etc.
I would say more on this, but Stargate is on. I probably shouldn't be completing assignments with the Sci-Fi Channel in the background.
While reading Turkle, I was reminded of our task during the last class to define "community," "identity," and "design." Turkle claims that technologies such as windows and MUDs help people to define themselves through various communities or interfaces. "[...] windows have become a powerful metaphor for thinking about the self as a multiple, distributed system. The self is no longer simply playing different roles in different settings at different times, something that a person experiences when, for example, she wakes up as a lover, makes breakfast as a mother, and drives to work as a lawyer." Apparently, windows (etc.) distinguish and separate out different aspects of our identities. I am violently opposed to this notion, as I was (somewhat) violently opposed to the definitions "we" (ahem) came up with in my previous post. Betsy wanted to define things as they are related to Web 2.0, which makes sense as a task but offends me as an idea (especially "identity," which, for whatever reason, is a very sensitive topic for me). Technology does not define me. Web 2.0 does not define me. Technology, Web 2.0, etc., is all a part of me, but they do not define me. Turkle's distinguishing between the lover, the mother, and the lawyer similarly irked me. Yes, I can have aspects of my identity that include a lover, mother, and lawyer, but I am not the sum of these parts. Maybe it's arrogant of me to believe that I am too complex to be parsed out in this manner, but I don't care.
Warning: possibly racist comments to follow
I suppose that's the American side of my upbringing (again, a part of me, but not what I would call a separate identity). I think it's funny that activity theory (i.e. Wenger's "social theory of learning") is such a novel idea in Western culture. Westerners are so deeply ingrained in their belief that the individual is king, and the community follows. No wonder it took outside influence (the socialists) to bring in something completely new and novel, like social learning, activity theory, etc.
I would say more on this, but Stargate is on. I probably shouldn't be completing assignments with the Sci-Fi Channel in the background.
