 |
| Sworn Enemies Nesting Dolls |
Abdullah's question, from Fridays elluminate session, "what if the network you created provides you with irrelevant or incorrect information/knowledge?" led to an extended discussion, in the elluminate chat roll, about enemies within a (your) learning network.
I have copied the chat roll into a google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nol_UPo5U81rE67_nZfYR6S80or0pCETai-9XihydDY/edit?hl=en&authkey=CO-OnrMK
NB:I have deleted many comments that did not relate to this particular discussion.
there were several great points, for example....
Lisa directed the conversation to the need for 'diversity within a network' to avoid the 'echo chamber' effect
...
Mira pointed out the recognition of authority on a topic relates to traditional learning as much as it does in a networked learning environment.
...
Simon pointed out that the individual learner is the 'agent' but the knowledge does not wholly reside within the individual in networked learning (I would be interested to explore this further)
Larry's response to Simon's comment was that there is both individual and network knowledge.
...
Many people then commented on the need to connect with or block 'enemies' (those we disagree with) in our networks. (another interesting point that I trust will be raised again).
I have reviewed the progress of the discussion to get it straight in my head and it has got me thinking....
Is my learning network diverse enough to allow me to gain a variety of perspectives on particular topics?
I believe that I follow (twitter, RSS feeds) many people who have inquiring minds and encourage dialogue of disagreement. But this leads me to wonder if I seek out disagreement or questioning enough in my inquiries, perhaps it is this 'difference' that will support my learning in understanding what something is by gaining a clearer picture of what 'it is not'. Am I getting all too philosophical now?
From this I have been thinking about the corporate culture that I am about to re-enter. I sometimes feel that corporate culture breeds agreement and often does not support or encourage open dialogue. The idea of 'open forums' can put a culture of agreement at risk (or it can reinforce the agreement, but it is a risk) and this is why I question if I will ever see a truly 'open' platform for communication and dialogue like 'twitter' (and now I am questioning if twitter is a truly open platform) adopted within a corporate culture.
Does anyone know of any examples of businesses that have successfully introduced internal 'social media' platforms? (or even an internal network or LMS that has discussion forums, individual blogs)
On re-reading this blog post I think I am turning into a .....critical thinker, and it's only Week 2. Hurrray!!
Happy Australia Day to all!
I have copied the chat roll into a google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nol_UPo5U81rE67_nZfYR6S80or0pCETai-9XihydDY/edit?hl=en&authkey=CO-OnrMK
NB:I have deleted many comments that did not relate to this particular discussion.
there were several great points, for example....
Lisa directed the conversation to the need for 'diversity within a network' to avoid the 'echo chamber' effect
...
Mira pointed out the recognition of authority on a topic relates to traditional learning as much as it does in a networked learning environment.
...
Simon pointed out that the individual learner is the 'agent' but the knowledge does not wholly reside within the individual in networked learning (I would be interested to explore this further)
Larry's response to Simon's comment was that there is both individual and network knowledge.
...
Many people then commented on the need to connect with or block 'enemies' (those we disagree with) in our networks. (another interesting point that I trust will be raised again).
I have reviewed the progress of the discussion to get it straight in my head and it has got me thinking....
Is my learning network diverse enough to allow me to gain a variety of perspectives on particular topics?
I believe that I follow (twitter, RSS feeds) many people who have inquiring minds and encourage dialogue of disagreement. But this leads me to wonder if I seek out disagreement or questioning enough in my inquiries, perhaps it is this 'difference' that will support my learning in understanding what something is by gaining a clearer picture of what 'it is not'. Am I getting all too philosophical now?
From this I have been thinking about the corporate culture that I am about to re-enter. I sometimes feel that corporate culture breeds agreement and often does not support or encourage open dialogue. The idea of 'open forums' can put a culture of agreement at risk (or it can reinforce the agreement, but it is a risk) and this is why I question if I will ever see a truly 'open' platform for communication and dialogue like 'twitter' (and now I am questioning if twitter is a truly open platform) adopted within a corporate culture.
Does anyone know of any examples of businesses that have successfully introduced internal 'social media' platforms? (or even an internal network or LMS that has discussion forums, individual blogs)
On re-reading this blog post I think I am turning into a .....critical thinker, and it's only Week 2. Hurrray!!
Happy Australia Day to all!
Image: Sworn Enemies Nesting Dolls
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57086069@N00/2782516892
Posts
1 comment:
NObody should be a member of one and only one network. People from one network do have another opinion than people in the other networks you are a member of. This culture of agreement in your network is the backbone of institutions and groups. In an institution or a factory people don’t criticize without secret intentions (not even in the Netherlands), if you want criticism go outside your institution (ask a consultant or a coach) and ask opinions and facts. You will be surprised.
Post a Comment