Gladwell's ideas are a nice way to start thinking about that complexity - certainly some kind of overlay would help. It's the qualitative differences in relationships that are hard to bring out, and that's certainly one way to start doing so (I have a vague recollection of reading about someone having tested Gladwell's hypothesis using social network analysis, but can't recall the outcome: does anyone know of any?)

It might also be interesting to consider different kinds of social capital in this respect - bonding, bridging, linking - which seem to fit quite well with the weak tie/strong tie notion and might be more in line with Eric's thoughts on temporary relationship management. What we want in such a context is probably both bridging and linking social capital, but probably not bonding social capital.

I understand Gladwell's "Mavens" and "Connectors" to be much the same as Rogers (Diffusion of Innovations) "Opinion Leaders" and "Change Agents" would this be appropriate?

On a different note. Rogers Generalization 8-12 States: Individuals tend to be linked to others who are close to them in physical distance and who are relatively homophilous in social characteristics. Would this then suggest social networking systems and virtual worlds should be effective because they provide rich communication effectively reducing the impact of physical distance.

I'd agree with that. Interesting discussion.

Again, it's risky to over-generalise though - a tendency tends to veil the specifics and very far from all communities involve physically close, socially homophilous people. For instance, it's worth distinguishing geographical communities, communities of action, communities of practice, communities of interest etc (there are many dozens of definitions of 'community' and thousands of sub-types). The benefits probably apply in most cases but they probably apply differently and it's not all about physical distance. 

In many cases I'm unconvinced that SNs and virtual worlds provide 'rich' communication, though I guess it depends on your definition. In fact, once we leave the physical environment, it's pretty ambiguous what the benefits of richer communication are and it is sometimes the lack of richness that gives benefits. For example, it's easier to tell if someone is lying if you hear them on the phone than if you are talking to them in real life. Discussion forum posts tend to be more thought-through and offer different (not necessarily better) value to learners than real-time conversations. Twitter posts work differently than blog posts and give us more control over the pace in some ways (less in others). It's not so much that communication is rich, perhaps, as that it is possible in a broader range of ways and contexts. None of them, including the most immersive video conference, come close to being with a person in a physical space but each shapes and influences how we interact in different ways, sometimes offering something more suited to our needs (often not). I'd suggest maybe it's the breadth and specialisation rather than the depth that brings benefits?

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if !mso]> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]--> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-CA;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} <![endif]-->

Jo Ann's responses (in red) are an interplay of reflections to glenngr4 via blog: The Challenges of Personal Blogging

I am a personal blogger, a reflective writer interested in journaling, cultivating my personal voice, as well as developing my official academic voice.

I am a relatively new personal blogger and a would-be edublogger and outreach blogger who is still feeling the ropes before being confident about where I want to arrive if I take the journey rope to different destinations.

The first challenge of personal blogging has to do with shoring up enough confidence while expressing myself-in-the-moment. Buber (2005) refers to the act of pausing long enough to document in mid-stream one's thoughts and experiences as "essential courage". I am embracing solitude and it is not to show off, but to undertake a journey of discovery, and perhaps identify some helpful tools for personal bloggin that I can share with others.

I have acquired a taste for my own meditative thinking and reflection over the years through journaling and working with people, like my mentor, Aileen Crow, who has journaled for years. She blogs on an authentic movement site and is a true Elder in the field of somatic awareness.  

The second challenge involves the search for the answer of how do I realistically balance the academic with the personal voices, when the characteristics of one blends sometimes with the other, blurring the voices?

Glenn’s recent blog post on Athabasca Landing talked about his refletion on the “balance of academic and personal voice” in blogs. I think it is a matter of how to better understand the intertwining and interplay with others for specific contexts – answering questions, exploring a concept, sharing e-learning and technology information, challenging with a critical mindset.

When I describe my own experiences of blogging, for example, and use transcript analysis, that seems to be fine within an academic voice, but dismissed as pedantic by some colleagues at the College who are time-strapped and interested in clear, concise recipes for applying theories to classroom practice.

I wonder about stages of inquiry – especially as I have done quite a bit of phenomenological research for many years now. My experience is that it is much easier to learn some things than others. Sometimes shortcuts are worthy and practical; sometimes they miss the mark of integration within the self. Knowing the difference is not choosing either or, but context and purpose.

But when I switch to the use of narrative, and use the personal "I", however, it is viewed by academic reviewers as immature, undeveloped, and lacking refinement.

In phenomenological studies, “I” is not the “dismissed I” but viewed as positive intrasubjective, not navel gazing at all. In some other forms of qualitative research, the “I-s” are all valued, and themes within and between “groups of I-s” exist”. When one thinks of the personal blogging, it could be possible to find personal learning themes, personal reflections on shifts of perspective, and to some extent track learning evolution. For the purpose of sharing themes, these studied-reflections could be delved into thematically. Most people would not likely do this, but it is a valid and reliable methodology if done thoroughly and with some hope to bring forth clarity about the phenomenon of personal blogging.

The third challenge of personal blogging has to do with the balancing of the tentative with the autocratic voices, the way I come across to myself and to others, and how my personal voice is shared appropriately with my audience. To what extent am I an authority for myself, for others? And to what extent do I invite personal revisions and feedback from others?

Meta commenting about and on the process is an interesting way to elucidate an emerging phenomenon.

I am torn between writing for myself, in which I return to earlier posts, revise and edit and re-tag them, and then based on the conclusions and lessons I have drawn from the process of re-writing, I then write more proactively for my future self.

In journaling, personally, I truly write for my best friend, myself. In blogging it is a shift – I write not only to myself, but to the imagined readers (quite shifting and sometimes undefined in my mind and sometimes chosen specifically), and for myself.

The fourth challenge of personal blogging has to do with using narrative more effectively, exploring the experiences more fully.

I wonder about creative responses in my writing versus more specific areas of intellectually honing in on a topic area.

Recognizing that the posts are grounded in time and place, do I owe myself more time for adding contextual cues? To what extent am I writing for the purpose of providing a more concise and coherent account? To what extent am I making decisions to hide details? reveal/distort details? What influences an I under while I write content? For example, the use of my name, Glenn Groulx, as a tag in the blog posts that were migrated from Me2U has been indirectly hinted at by some as inappropriate. I am not upset by the request to edit

these: the concern is that the name is too prominent in the community. Yet that was not even my intent: the tagging was meant for Me2U, and was not meant to vainly showcase my blog. Now I have more than a hundred posts to go through still to change/delete the Glenn Groulx tag from my posts. This is a lengthy, arduous process, and till the tag drops in prominence, decision-makers of AU Landing removed the Tag Cloud altogether from the public page.

The fifth challenge of personal blogging is to take a fundamentally different stance of learning: the primary purpose shifts more and more towards the personal away from the academic: blogging authentically to provide oneself an outlet for becoming an expert on one's own development.

Blogging, more than any other process, is more than the technology. It is the connections, the sustained narrative, and the life-stream that leaves a legacy.

Legacy? What kind of digital footprint? A blogging digital footprint or a blogging “read”, “photo show” versus connecting with lifelong learners who are bloggers too – that has been an interesting point. I remember Glenn bringing up footprints a few years ago.

Blogging personally involves the whole person, in which one engages in self-assessment, re-interpretations and descriptions, justifications and open questioning, inferences and conclusions, and so the challenge for the personal blogger is how to engage self to accomplish the witnessing of one's own life-journey.

I wonder about when I respond and when I lead the discussion with others involved at some point or not.

The sixth challenge of personal blogging is how to extend oneself to serve others, and participate meaningfully as an agent of change. A personal blogger needs to seek venues to engage other individuals in learning partnerships, in study groups, in non-formal blogging circles, as a solo personal blogger recording one's own journey, as well as engaging others in anonymous forums.

I think I am engaging in blogging in many forms – others blogs, my blogs, course blogs, professional blogs, and it is definitely expanding my world.

This community does nothing to provide the anonymous forum - it does not encourage students and instructors to debate from a position of anonymity the confused, chaotic feelings and experiences, the ambivalence, of engaging others and self within AU Landing. There is no precedent for this kind of activity within formal learning spaces. The closest is the anonymous self-help forums with clearly defined codes of conduct, where there are mentors aiding novices in their explorations. Though many times the novices talk about the same things as experienced mentors, over time the mentors point to FAQs and archives for reference materials for newcomers.

I like to just explore and not be demanding on my blogging – I have many projects on the go – blogging is for connection and stimulates my own live-world integration.

Hi everyone!

I would like to respond to Terry's five points -- one by one.

1. With relatively low barriers to artistic expression  and civic engagement -- I think that Athabasca Landing is gets high points for point one, but until people find that they are engaging more habitually, there may be limited sharing yet. I'm optimistic for the future.

2. With strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations with others.  -- I would give the format -- heads-up here, but as I see it, we will have to gain confidence in how to use the various options afforded on the site, before there is "best practice" and maximum participations which then can receive support.  I find that I tend to be a high responder, but only when something feels like it will sparksomething more (continuity) or when I intuit that my post will be potentially valued by at least one others

3. With some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices4. Where members believe that their contributions  matter.  -- I think that there is lots of action in this regard -- people are very responsive and to me they are interesting and stimulating..

5. Where members feel some degree of social connection  with one another (at the least they care what other

people think about  what they have created) But culture change -especially for education institutions is very hard  to accomplish. -- I sometimes wonder if  people think my contributions  add to their  scope and/or  that I am connecting to them. I'm always delighted  -- and imagine others are too  -- when someone  takes time to respond, as the two people  prior to my post  have done.

I think culture is a big part in participation or not. What is the purpose of the Landing - what makes it different, better, useful etc.?

I was speaking to a peer at a university in eastern Canada about online environments and this individual was very adamant about the purpose of an LMS versus the purpose of other tools such as social networking software and it was clear that "school" takes place in the classroom (the LMS) and idle, social chatter takes place on social networking sites such as the Landing - the two worlds are mutually exclusive. I have attempted to have this conversation with others and it appears that there are significant paradigmatic concerns that the academic world needs to resolve concerning the use of environments for learning.

Like most issues that involve change, individuals move when issues become personal and they begin to see that their world can benefit from these changes. I guess the Landing needs to be seen as having personal value which then extends beyond to one's day-to-day involvement. We need to see places like the Landing as part of our daily academic interaction and then its use gets slotted into our daily routine and does not become some side issue or chore we have to go off and do.

Stu

I think there might be more cohesion and interaction between the different groups if there were fewer perceived boundaries between the learning spaces. Stuart referred to a peer's observation about the separation between the use of the LMS and the social network site. This is a common perception: students don't have permission to enter the learning spaces of other groups, and refrain from interacting with others rather than risking committing a social blunder of over-eagerness.

Now although I agree that there need to be clearly defined rules about what an outlsider (defined as a learner not enrolled in the course like the others) can and cannot do within a specific class learning space, there are still many opportunities for interaction, for engaging and sharing experiences with others. As long as the outsider "guest" does not engage students about course content, draw from those restricted resources allocated for the paying course participants, the type of learning through shared sense-making and giving can still occur, particularly with these guests exploring the affective dimensions of learning, still significant, but not directly part of the courses objectives.

To what extent would faculty feel surprise and concern if a group of unenrolled student observers begin "running through the course home backyards and jiggling the locks of the toolsheds and content silos?" Although intended in some way as an extended cheeky metaphor, the question is quite serious.  What about students? Would they appreciate a group of non-fee-paying students muddling up the course discussions, dropping extraneous content and reflections unrelated to the course assignments?

Would the students feel a bit overwhelmed with these intrusions? Or would these other students act as informal mentors, guiding and showcasing through example how to use the AU Landing for one's own goals, not just to pass courses, but to engage in independent, self-regulated learning?

Evidence? All very intuitive, at this point. Guest learners generally don't have the extra motivation to generally mentor others when the roles are blurred, and expectations are unclear.

Dear Glenn,

Thanks for sharing your process and the Power Point, which was a visual way and and effective way to critique an article with your highlighted emphasis. I haven't seen it done like this before.  I liked your idea of "perception" and relate it to "what we focus upon".  Our worlds change depending on what we focus upon -- even our neurology (neurogenisis theoretical and neurological research, Bil O'Hanlon, and also Daniel Siegel's work).

I also think that "cold" is related to how activated the "insula is (or insulae are -- as there are 2" as it is this part of our brain that "feels the body's sense of cold". This quality response also can be a perceptual/proprioceptive response -- that may indicate "some" people would related to the technological experience in this way -- but not everyone.  Research will need to take into account individual neurology -- something that is basic to our mammalian nature.

still very much lurking at this point in time!

Hi Glenn,

Having been at this blogging thing for less than a week, I'm also interested in finding out what needs it best serves.  As of now, I'm thinking it may just well be the place where reporting on events, journalling, sharing ideas and meeting others all converge (at least that has been my experience this week).

I also started blogging about two weeks ago. On my blog I am talking about using the Landing as well as whatever else pops into my head, both professional and social. I have it closed to those I follow only but really doubt that anyone is reading it. The fact is I enjoy writing it regardless.

I also have a small group working (3 AU faculty) on a project together on the Landing and a private group of one, me, working on a course development project. I lke the bookmarks and am bookmarking to my profile and my private group.

I came across Tanya the other day and enjoy her insights.