#CCK11 Discourse and the networks

#CCK11 Interesting phenomena: networkers have now set up their own platforms for discourse, interacting & changing in different spaces (blogs/tweets/media)

Credit: From Tony Hirst post on CCK

Connection, Exploration, Participation, Interaction, Communication, Sharing, Curation, Aggregation, Criticism, Debates, Appreciation, Synthesis,  Evaluation, Discourse and LEARNING.

What else is happening within the networks? Is the power and control decentralized as shared by Ken?  Does it follow a power law?  May be power is more under the control of the individual person – with more autonomy and power re-distributed.

Power issues and conflicts do arise in both groups and networks.  However, in networks, the diversity of opinions do allow many conflicts to be surfaced, debated or resolved through multiple channels, or not even resolved, if found not deemed to be that important (the power law doesn’t apply that easily).  In other words, it leaves choice for the learners.  If learners don’t find one network to be particular helpful, they could consider other network sources.  Similarly, if they perceive overly unwarranted power over them in networks, they could resort to other networks or media.  So the power issue may be degenerated into a smoothing of views.  This is not that easy to resolve in the case of groups, unless one is to quit from the group.  But is the web hierarchy free too?

I particularly like Rita’s discussion of power here:

Of course we have found other ways to filter our information; knowledgeable others we trust can provide us with relevant and interesting information . Bouchard (2010) and Boyd (2010) still see problems with these as well and question the possibility of hierarchy-free peer to peer connections on the Web:

However, the notion of  ‘supernode’ predictably emerges when some contributors are recognized by a  number of others as having particular relevance to, or knowledge of a problem. There seems to be a natural tendency within the ‘perfectly’ democratic network to organize itself, over time, in a hierarchical system composed of leaders and followers.

(Bouchard, 2010, p. 3)

What is your role in the network?

13 thoughts on “#CCK11 Discourse and the networks

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention #CCK11 Discourse and the networks | Suifaijohnmak's Weblog -- Topsy.com

  2. >There seems to be a natural tendency within the ‘perfectly’ democratic network to organize itself, over time, in a hierarchical system composed of leaders and followers.

    Hi John. Does the above quote from Rita’s work suggest the inevitability of the ‘power law’.

  3. The quote from Rita’s post here:

    However, the notion of ‘supernode’ predictably emerges when some contributors are recognized by a number of others as having particular relevance to, or knowledge of a problem. There seems to be a natural tendency within the ‘perfectly’ democratic network to organize itself, over time, in a hierarchical system composed of leaders and followers. We are then left with a social organization that resembles the ‘outside’ world of government and commerce, with the difference that the currency of exchange in the network is not money or power, but reputation and popularity.
    (Bouchard, 2010, p. 3)

    To what extent is this reflective of the reality on the web and internet? It may be interesting to study the social networks and social webs (graphs) and see how the networks evolve. I think power laws do exist in various forms at different stages of clusters of networks. However, would a leader – follower relationship evolve in networks (with power law attributes based on super-nodes taking up leadership position)? I think we need to conduct more research to explore this.
    John

  4. Hi John;
    Good points! I do believe that the evolution of the social web may be in early iterations. Facebook may be everywhere, but a real peer to peer culture of equipotency and collaboration is still very new in most peoples’ experiences. Many people are still searching for expertise in their participation, where peer to peer culture recognizes that value can arise from any node and can not be predicted.

  5. Hmm…
    You are dealing with many concepts in this post—-power…. laws… power laws… democratic participation… relationships… social webs… social networks…leaders and followers in groups and in networks….
    It looks like you are looking a specific group of individuals who have blogs and who are enrolled in CCK11. It will be interesting to see if the network evolves… and it will be interesting to see who participates, how, and for how long…
    I was today reading a post on connective knowledge by Downes (2005) and several of Siemen’s discussion of learning and connectivism. I was not reading these as a node in the network, nor as a blogger, but in relation to research in my field. Always interested in your ongoing thinking…
    Mary

  6. Hi Mary,
    Thanks for your comments. How would the network evolve? Yes, that would be interesting. Which particular field are you interested in? Language teaching?

    John

  7. Hi John,
    My interest related to language and literacy practices. I found the SlideShare presentation by Tony Hirst, “Texts and Literacy in a Digital Age,” as relevant to the work being done within this community.

  8. Pingback: #cck11 – Equipotency: A Potentially Important Concept for Connectivism? | A Chronicle of a Learning Journey

  9. Pingback: #CCK11 Power, Accountability underpinning Networked Learning | Learner Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s