Up with Downes!
I once enter the world of programming many years ago with my Vic 20 and my COCO 28 (Radio Shack). Did some work with LOGO at the high school. Then GUI came along…. praise the Mac Classic.
Then Mr. Downes shows his customized tools for collecting feeds of various types, organizing, creating, etc. and I wonder why I left the coding world. However I take comfort in his belief in open source and that knowledge should be free to all….. I just hope his plan to release his “reader on steroids” is a little more user friendly for us illiterate coders.
I found his slideshare presentation on networks vs groups excellent and thought provoking. My sister-in-law and brother-in-law work in the area of business, and often refer to their attendance at conferences and lunches as “networking”. Yet when they collaborate on a project with their peers, they work in groups.
Institutions, such as schools and businesses, thrive on the group model, assigning roles and tasks to individuals; part of our best practice in teaching.
So what about networked collaboration when there is a time frame involved? Personal learning certainly is affected because of these constraints, do they not?
1.) Is networking or groups the best approach to problem solving in terms of effective, time based outcomes, or for personal informal learning experiences? Does the concept of timed outcomes within a network destroy the concept of a network?
2.) Can a group model maintain some of it’s positive aspects (time frames, for example) and still maintain some characteristics of a network? If so, what would it look like?
I hope I have expressed myself clearly. I may be attempting to re convey my meanings in the next short while!
Thoughts.
The groups vs. networks distinction is really important and Stephen has spent quite some time discussing this concept. Also check this video out for a better explanation from Stephen – http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4126240905912531540
Hey Shaun. Your post made me think about both my corporate experience and my volunteer organization experience. In the latter case, I’m thinking of our professional associations.
Associations thrive through the network – it is the bread and butter of the organization. And groups are formed to deliver specific tasks (membership drive, annual conference, etc). But that is the point – groups are less about learning and more about doing. Networks are more about learning, and less about doing. The assumption is that the group knows both what it needs to do and how to do it.
So back to your questions – I would disagree with your comment that organizations/institutions thrive on the group model. Yes, an element of success is clearly the organization’s ability to “deliver the goods” at a point in time. But ultimately, the internal network is critical to an organization’s long-term success. A successful organization is organic – the organization itself learns; it adapts, grows, changes. And these are the attributes of networks, not groups.
Well, now I am interested! When I said that organizations/institutions “thrive” on the group model, I really should have stated “that is what they do”…Question…if a network is critical to an institution/organization, then performance (accountability is everywhere) would be based on the power of the “node” right? If so, I can accept that..However, most business models I know are project based, and unless project structures have changed of late, there usually is a group involved. “Subcommittees” as well. Why do I keep thinking of the “Apprentice”?
Networks are valuable, but I think most organizations/institutions have not grasped the network model. To expand, (and I am talking more the business world here) they “takeover”.
I completely agree with what you say, but I don’t see it put into practice in a competive environment. (yet, it should!)