Saturday 4 May 2013

Happy accidents or inspired designs?

Delving through the literature about online communities, I came across an earlier survey by Johnson (2001), treating online communities of practice as a naturally occurring phenomenon within designed online communities. Johnson studied successful communities of practice, to establish what organisational factors contribute to their success, as opposed to more traditional organisational decision making.

From my worldview, this contrasts the rigid doctrines of hierarchical institutions with the distributed, decentralised approaches of emergent networks. Interesting points concern:
  1. The need for organisations to adopt these ways of working to survive in the face of rapid change
  2. The concept of collaborative knowledge outweighing individual knowledge - some parallels with collective intelligence perhaps?
  3. The tension between the need for the community to understand process, and the need for market & product development
All of these points have particular relevance for the organisation I work for, with rapid changes in business, learning, technology and government. Moving towards this way of working is particularly desirable for transparency and continued development, but is difficult to achieve in practice. My own interest is in understanding - from a qualitative perspective - what experiences encourage people to go beyond occasional participation and into sustained discourse (Hobson, 2013). I am also interested in understanding factors that lead to attrition, a point that Johnson notes as a common problem.

Johnson also addresses issues of the medium itself, our conceptions of community, and the effect of using face-to-face communication alongside online interactions. Effective online communities adhere to adult learning principles, with a breakdown of the normal instructor - learner differentiation. I note that this supports a move from hierarchical to networked organisation principles. Real and sustainable communities will form around real problems where motivation to seek out solutions is high.

Does such collaboration come about within a company naturally? Does it need any facilitation?  What role should learning and development play in all of this? Our role should be to support the development of collective and employee knowledge, rather than to impart it, leading to the moderator role. Here I can identify where my existing efforts have either met with success or struggled. Communities need goals to achieve, objective evaluation of that success [as a group], and also peer & self-evaluation.

There is a need to draw out the concepts of community that apply to work-based problems and those for formal education courses. A key difference is that for formal education, we are all expected to learn the same thing, and are assessed against this, whereas for real workplace learning, it is the variety of individual learning outcomes that allows the group to have greater intelligence than the sum of its parts. It is perhaps this necessary diversity of outcomes that makes online learning communities such a slippery but valuable prize.

Psychology naturally seems to underpin the development (or not) of a community, with perceived intentions having impact on whether learning happens as a result of comments from other members. 'Are they criticising me? How dare they!' or 'It's really helpful to get constructive thoughts on my work' - which of these a person thinks about comments from peers will likely depend on the underlying environment and individual mentalities. It's not simply a question of technology! My next stop for reading will be works by Palloff and Pratt, as mentioned by the author.

References
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

1 comment:

  1. Unknown8 May 2013 at 13:58

    James,
    This is a really interesting post packed full of considerations. I, too, am struggling with the question of transition to online environments since the key factors of leadership, instructors and students all need to be in balance to ensure a successful transition. I have experienced institutions who struggle with one or more of these elements resulting in strategy that is only documented on paper and never implemented, or something is implemented haphazardly with varying degrees of success. Instructional design models are simply not robust enough to support fully online, immersive environments. It is evolving, and Bloom's Digital Taxonomy and others discussions of pedagogical design are incorporating a truly new environment. Instructional design can't help the lecture posted online with a link to an eBook.

    The point comparing workplace learning to educational settings is also interesting. I would expect both situations to desire to have everyone learn the same thing. I wonder if "learning the same thing" and "becoming competent" could be exchanged. Or whether the assessment component is the differentiating factor. Perhaps the distinction is the pace of learning - some learn faster than others or dedicate more time than others. This is challenging in the workplace unless there is a specific outcome. In an educational setting for the adult learner, it is the learner who should state when they are ready to learn and the technology should be available to support this scenario. All who complete will have had exposure to the same content, but everyone will process differently based on experience, practical application and or theoretical understanding.

    You are so right that it is not just the technology. There are so many other factors. I appreciate your posts and wish you good luck in your endeavors.

    --Margaret

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)