Concepts of the Professional Network
Cooperation
Cooperation is a term used to describe a theory in which the phenomenon of whether to cooperate or not is examined. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Game Theory, a game in which, players are rewarded or not depending on whether they choose to cooperate or not. Cooperation, here, is a means of studying strategic decision making.
This sounds rather academic but the phenomenon can be found in a number of different aspects of everyday life. Take, for example, wild animals living in groups. They stay within the group and enjoy the nurture and protection afforded by the group until such time that they no longer need the support and leave the group to go their own way. We can even see this in human family behaviour where adolescents stay with their parents until the urge to feel independent becomes overpowering. As American political scientist, Robert Axelrod wrote, "Cooperating fully with others until you reach a point of maximum benefit, and then to 'defect". (1984)
This sounds rather academic but the phenomenon can be found in a number of different aspects of everyday life. Take, for example, wild animals living in groups. They stay within the group and enjoy the nurture and protection afforded by the group until such time that they no longer need the support and leave the group to go their own way. We can even see this in human family behaviour where adolescents stay with their parents until the urge to feel independent becomes overpowering. As American political scientist, Robert Axelrod wrote, "Cooperating fully with others until you reach a point of maximum benefit, and then to 'defect". (1984)
Cooperating with someone until he is no longer of any use to me is something that I don't think I have knowingly done. I liken Cooperation and the Game Theory to the difference between usage and 'abusage'. I know that in my profession, people have done very well from 'using' other people and then when they have attained what they wanted, 'defecting'. I regard this as a natural cycle in life with each generation of performers at first using the network (cooperating), then abusing the network (defecting), then being used in turn by the next generation.
Sometimes, cooperating in this way isn't always to everyone's taste, as I can think of instances where people use false hoods or insincerity to do what is known as 'playing the game'. An example of this could be when people brown nose others they do not like in order to gain some advantage one way or another.
Sometimes, cooperating in this way isn't always to everyone's taste, as I can think of instances where people use false hoods or insincerity to do what is known as 'playing the game'. An example of this could be when people brown nose others they do not like in order to gain some advantage one way or another.
Affiliation
Affiliation is a concept of social psychology. It's purpose is to find out why we humans "form close relationships". It apparently provides us with "a network of support that will help us when we are in need" (Crisp & Turner, 2007). Homeostasis, (O'Connor & Rosenblood, 1996) the principle theory of affiliation, affirms that our demand for affiliation may differ from one person to another. However, we all, as human beings, require it in some form or another.
A far simpler way to understand affiliation is to ask "why we are social creatures in the first place (Crisp & Turner, 2007). They claim that the reason why we human beings seek others and form close relationships is because it is instinctive, helping us to survive by supplying a network to help when we are in need. "Homeostasis is the idea that people control their level of contact with others to keep it stable and as close as possible to a desired level" (Crisp & Turner, 2007).
Affiliation doesn't always have positive aspects. We are not always able to get what we want and because we all have a need for affiliation, failing to attain our desired levels of social interaction can sometimes have a "detrimental effect on people" (Crisp & Turner, 2007) such as disheartening, loneliness and social anxiety.
I can relate this to my profession by referring back to my claim that people in my profession understand the significance of using networking to achieve success. In order to expand their network, they need to socially engage or affiliate with whomever can assist them in their progression/survival in the industry, for example, engaging or making contact with the likes of a choreographer or casting director. If they do not get a reply or, in other words, if they cannot achieve the social contact they need to succeed, after a while it is possible to become disheartened. This isn't helped by the apparent 'second life' requirement to keep up appearances that social media has created, which constantly informs us all of how well we are doing in our lives and with our careers.
Social Constructionism
My understanding is that Social Constructionism is a theory that knowledge and many aspects of the world around us are not in fact real as we know them to be, but only exist because we give them reality ('construct' them) through social agreement. For example, money is in effect just paper or metal, however we socially constructed it's value in today's society.
To link this to networking, if we subscribe to the view that 'through our interactions, we can make meanings', this, in turn, should explain how we attach value and form the identity of our networks. So, we can acknowledge from this theory that what we receive through social interactions, results in how we view or value our network. This is why other people consider some things to be better than others. For example, if there are two people interacting in the same network, one of them may value the network differently or higher than the other, should one of them have had more frequent or higher-quality social interactions than the other.
I have to be perfectly honest here and say that I have never thought of spending time thinking about my networks in this way. To me, it is pretty obvious that people will value things differently, depending on how they experience them. That is not to say that I haven't learned anything from this theory. I am becoming increasingly aware that networks can be of different values to different people in different circumstances, as witnessed by members of my profession who critically reflection on their experiences in different ways and come up with different opinions.
To link this to networking, if we subscribe to the view that 'through our interactions, we can make meanings', this, in turn, should explain how we attach value and form the identity of our networks. So, we can acknowledge from this theory that what we receive through social interactions, results in how we view or value our network. This is why other people consider some things to be better than others. For example, if there are two people interacting in the same network, one of them may value the network differently or higher than the other, should one of them have had more frequent or higher-quality social interactions than the other.
I have to be perfectly honest here and say that I have never thought of spending time thinking about my networks in this way. To me, it is pretty obvious that people will value things differently, depending on how they experience them. That is not to say that I haven't learned anything from this theory. I am becoming increasingly aware that networks can be of different values to different people in different circumstances, as witnessed by members of my profession who critically reflection on their experiences in different ways and come up with different opinions.
Connectivism
Connectivism is the theory of how we learn by connecting through social networks and can also be linked to Network Theory, which uses technology. In principle, according to the theory of connectivism, "learning rests with a diversity of opinions" (Siemens 2004), by the process of connecting information sources through social networks. It thrives on the "nurturing and maintaining [of] connections" (2004) for continual learning, providing learners with up to date "knowledge of their field".
In layman's terms, the simplest way to describe this concept is by stating that it is a theory of how we learn through social networks. It succeeds in a similar way to how Web 2.0 does, through user, or in this case, learner interaction, which creates a constant flow of information which allows continual learning one way or another.
I would agree that learning through connectivism is a useful skill/tool that we use on a daily basis without realising it. I can think of many instances in my professional life where this theory would apply, but I do not think it is something that should require us human beings to stop and think about applying. I am of the belief that learning through our social environments, be they living, digital or spiritual, is a natural, instinctive process, as we are all social beings intended to learn through nature and nurture. That being said, I appreciate that connectivism is a valid theory relating to this way of learning.
Connectivism is the theory of how we learn by connecting through social networks and can also be linked to Network Theory, which uses technology. In principle, according to the theory of connectivism, "learning rests with a diversity of opinions" (Siemens 2004), by the process of connecting information sources through social networks. It thrives on the "nurturing and maintaining [of] connections" (2004) for continual learning, providing learners with up to date "knowledge of their field".
In layman's terms, the simplest way to describe this concept is by stating that it is a theory of how we learn through social networks. It succeeds in a similar way to how Web 2.0 does, through user, or in this case, learner interaction, which creates a constant flow of information which allows continual learning one way or another.
I would agree that learning through connectivism is a useful skill/tool that we use on a daily basis without realising it. I can think of many instances in my professional life where this theory would apply, but I do not think it is something that should require us human beings to stop and think about applying. I am of the belief that learning through our social environments, be they living, digital or spiritual, is a natural, instinctive process, as we are all social beings intended to learn through nature and nurture. That being said, I appreciate that connectivism is a valid theory relating to this way of learning.
Communities of Practice
Communities of practice is a term used to explain learning as the result of engagement in cooperative or social relationships rather than a process of acquisition of knowledge as an individual. Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest learning can stem from situations of co-participation describing it as 'situated learning'.
My understanding of communities of practice is that it is, instead of singularly seeking an answer for yourself, finding other people in your chosen area of interest to discover the information/answers you are looking for by collectively sharing, as a community, what you already know. The social union and combined knowledge should, in effect, bring more than just an interchange of information but learn through being included in a co-operative that everybody can benefit from.
"Rather than learning by replicating the performances of others or by acquiring knowledge transmitted in instruction, we suggest that learning occurs through centripetal participation in the learning curriculum of the ambient community." (Lave and Wenger 1991.)
I accept that the communities of practice is a very valid form or learning through networking. I can certainly see its value when applied to my profession. It makes me aware of the fact that I can benefit from learning by engaging with others in my networks rather than seeking out the information myself.
Ethical Considerations for Networking
Even though a lot of our modern day networks are dependant on the Internet and the use of Web 2.0, the above concepts of social networking, both real-life and online, are fundamentally the same. We can say that all the issues and ethical considerations that engaging with others through social network websites present apply just the same to real-life social networking, too. We still have to consider our etiquette, our reputation, the publishing of digital media and the release of sensitive information whilst remaining aware of the many negative factors that social networking brings.
REFERENCES
'Essential Social Psychology' - R. J. Crisp, R. N. Turner (2007)
'A Learning Theory for the Digital Age' - G. Siemens (2004)
'Chapter 4: Legitimate peripheral participation in communities in practice' - J. Lave, E. Wenger (1991)
No comments:
Post a Comment