Miscellaneous slides from my Introduction to Online Communities workshops in Australia, 2009. Note that these represent raw material rather than a sequence of ideas.
12. Many: Networks We: Communities Me: the Individual Personal identity, interest & trajectory Bounded membership; group identity, shared interest Boundaryless; fuzzy, intersecting interests
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20. social design: people attitude learning style motivation Experience - technology learning
21.
22.
23. social design: process online facilitation community management roles norms, rules, agreements role modeling But we'll come back to this...
24.
25.
26. addressing inherent community tensions Tools Group asynchronous discussion boards teleconference chat instant messaging member directory wiki blog telephony/ VoIP individual profile page e-mail e-mail lists scratch pad RSS “ new” indicators subscription podcast content repository presence indicator buddy list security Q&A systems RSS aggregator newsletter calendar videoconference application sharing whiteboard site index participation statistics search subgroups personalization community public page version control document management UseNet content rating scheduling polling commenting networking tools tagging bookmarking shared filtering geomapping www.TechnologyForCommunities.com Etienne Wenger Nancy White John Smith Individual Interacting Publishing synchronous Group asynchronous
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32. don’t worry – there will be bumps in the road…TALK about them
As we dug into the PRACTICES of technology stewardship, we realized they were part of a system, a habitat in which a group, community or network interacted. That there were intersections between the defined set of tools in a group and those used by individuals. There were overlaps and disconnects.
We have sought to find new labels for these ways of “being together.” What has been significant for me is that they express a continuum of being together.
You can be clear when we talk about the individual, me. We can be clear when we have bounded communities with clear establishment of in/out membership. We can also have communities with fuzzy boundaries, which may even be networks.
You can be clear when we talk about the individual, me. We can be clear when we have bounded communities with clear establishment of in/out membership. We can also have communities with fuzzy boundaries, which may even be networks.
You can be clear when we talk about the individual, me. We can be clear when we have bounded communities with clear establishment of in/out membership. We can also have communities with fuzzy boundaries, which may even be networks.
So in the past, I’ve done this exercise in pairs, in World Café and in the 1-2-4 build up. I’d not do 1-2-4 here and Café takes longer, so I suggest pairs or maybe rotating pairs then a debrief.
We didn’t get to the network mapping
The time/space dimension is represented on the horizontal axis, with primarily asynchronous tools toward the left and primarily synchronous tools toward the right. The donut of the middle band represents the tension between participation and reification by classifying tools along a continuum between interacting in the upper half and publishing in the lower half. The tension between the group and the individual is represented by the center circle and the outer band respectively. The center circle focuses on the collective, with group and site management tools. The outer band focuses on the individual, with tools for managing participation from the perspective of individual members.
Get used to it Control is an ILLUSION
In our research of CoPs we noticed 9 general patterns of activities that characterized a community’s orientation. Most had a mix, but some were more prominent in every case. Image: Wenger, White and Smith, 2007
In our research of CoPs we noticed 9 general patterns of activities that characterized a community’s orientation. Most had a mix, but some were more prominent in every case. I’ll walk us through each profile and give some examples. Image: Wenger, White and Smith, 2007
We can use the activity circle as the basis for a spider graph and evaluate the groups we are working with. I’ll give a few examples. We can use this spidergraph to inform both our process and our technology designs in a learning setting.
Things look different in different types of communities. This is a support community.
Sliders – as we think about how we pick, design and deploy technology, what sort of intentionality do we want with respect to these tensions? More importantly, how do we use them as ways to track our community’s health, make adjustments in both technology and practice.
Not clearly demarcated, but there are new roles and practices we are all taking on. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsevilla/189528500/in/set-1368427/ Uploaded on July 14, 2006 by dsevilla