Social networks and identity

Articles on using social software in education posit the question of how to 'plan' or design for user-regulated learning: how to scaffold learners in constructive tasks that they themselves create and pursue, that is, what is Pedagogy 2.0 (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). In the site under examination, pedagogical design and scaffolding is not particularly present, but hopefully the research findings will be relevant to considering how students choose to use social networking and create identity in education-based social network sites. Situated cognition and activity theory crop up in discussions of social software (cf. Young, 2009) - I don't think I need to go into this in depth, as I am taking a more micro view.

Part of my research is observation of a social network site and the artefacts, ' "microcontent", i.e., digital content in small fragments' (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007) created by the members. Without focus, this would be a huge task, considering the large number of members and the many interactions, discussions and uploads. This will be partly managed by selecting three collaborative groups on which to conduct detailed analysis. In the area of sensemaking and identity, profile personalisation - type of profile picture, type of image and the types of other shared details - will be one area of analysis. Another focus will be on the mostly implied norms and etiquette of AC (initials of the social network site). ‘Power is now diffused through social relationships… individuals are now encouraged to regulate themselves and to ensure that their own behavior falls within acceptable norms’ (Buckingham, 2008). I'm interested in how people have constructed and assumed the norms of interaction.

Further questions are: are people creating new connections or expanding existing ones; what audiences are they imagining and what impressions do they hope to achieve? Answers can be implied from the way people have communicated and the artefacts they have chosen to share. Interviews will further explore these questions.

In line with the Sense-Making methodology, topics and questions for the forum and interviews will be very open, leaving the respondent with control over the agenda. Initially I thought to ask the questions, 'Do you identify with other members of the site? Some more than others? What is it that influences you in identifying with someone?' However, on reading Hughes (2010) and revisiting Sense-Making, this approach is too leading. In line with Hughes, the questions will be more general, asking instead about ‘positive and negative experiences of working [or communicating] collaboratively online' (Hughes, 2010).

This leaves the researcher with the job of placing open-ended answers within the context of sensemaking and identity. Do connections illustrate social, operational or knowledge congruity, that is, is the communication based on social connections, how to use tools or on an 'identification with the ideas, concepts and knowledges that are under construction' (Hughes, 2010)? Although much of the communication within AC is social, such as personal greetings, the longest and most involved discussion was one about choosing cameras, involving a number of members who had not had much, if any, previous contact. This seems to confirm Hughes' assertion that 'knowledge congruity' is key to constructive communication - and is the most likely ingredient for participation (Hughes, 2010). According to Hughes (2010) cooperation results from being ‘willing to share knowledge’ and make it available for people to critique, plus ‘others must negotiate identity congruence with this knowledge by interacting with it in a constructive way’ (Hughes, 2010).

The research will look at several groups that have been formed in AC. As 'identity also implies a relationship with a broader collective or social group of some kind' (Hughes, 2010), individual identity is formed in the context of the full site community as well as that of a specific group.  Greenhow and Robelia (2009) 'view identity formation as dynamic, self-reflective, and performative, rather than something that just is, or that we develop into and sustain.’ It is also ‘self-discovery and self-presentation’ (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009).  The dynamic development of identity resonates with the concept of sensemaking as an ongoing process.

Who are the audience - under whose (imagined) gaze do people perform their identities? Are there different ‘registers’ of language (Buckingham, 2008) in different contexts? That is, do people modify their mode of communication depending on their imagined audience?

A study of the use of Ning, the social network software-as-a-service used for AC, as a learning network, identified ‘four key themes…: communication, collaboration, reflection and comprehension, and convenience and comfort’ (Brady, Holcomb & Smith, 2010). This study found that the time required to spend on Ning was seen as an obstacle by its users. It is likely that the issue of frequency of use and time constraints will be noted by respondents from AC, especially as their courses are extremely intensive full-time courses or part-time courses with students juggling work and family commitments.

‘For social interaction, in particular knowledge sharing, to occur we have identified three conditions: the boundary condition, the heterogeneity condition and the accountability condition’ (Berlanga et.al, 2009). I don't know whether this is particularly relevant to note, though the three conditions seem to be met by AC. Whether it has clearly defined goals (boundary) could be questioned but the behaviour of its members seems to run on an understood set of rules. Its members are varied, running from the very technically and socially savvy to the lurkers, from trendsetters to followers. All are accountable as they use their own names and have ongoing contact with other members. Perhaps it will be that the lack of clear goals may be something that appears as a barrier or 'gap' to sensemaking and hence participation.

On the subject of method, Young (2009) suggests the use of the 'think-aloud' method in asking participants to 'deconstruct their online profile'. This is something to consider in interviews, where the site can be made available to help interviewees in their recollection and to make their thinking or sensemaking processes more visible.

In talking of the affordances of social software, the definition offered by McLoughlin and Lee (2007) is useful: 'an affordance is a “can do” statement that does not have to be predefined by a particular functionality, and refers to any application that enables a user to undertake tasks in their environment, whether known or unknown to him/her. For example, blogging entails typing and editing posts, which are not affordances, but which enable the affordances of idea sharing and interaction.' They list some of the affordances of social software tools as 'connectivity and social rapport...collaborative information discovery and sharing...content creation... knowledge and information aggregation and content modification.

My planned reading is as follows:

• Continue with Dervin's reader on Sense-Making. It has to go back from inter-library loan within a week.
• Dron, J. (2007). Designing the Undesignable: Social Software and Control. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (3), 60-71. (Mentioned in one of my readings - seemed to have some interesting things to say.)
• Dwyer, C. Digital Relationships in the 'MySpace' Generation: Results From a Qualitative Study
• I'm currently reading some ethnographic papers on education and identity, which in addition to introducing me to ethnographic style are also offering some interesting ideas. They are:
  Dixon, C., Yeager, B., Castanheira, M. & Green, J. (2007) (Re)Formulating identities in the face of fluid modernity: An interactional ethnographic approach. International Journal of Educational Research. 46, 172-189
  Kirschner, P., Andriessen, J., Erkens, G. & Sins, P. (2010) Shared Epistemic Agency: An Empirical Study of an Emergent Construct. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 143-186
  Barton, A. & Tan, E. (2010) We Be Burnin'! Agency, Identity, and Science Learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 143-186
• Mazur, J. (2004) Conversation Analysis for Educational Technologists: Theoretical and Methodological issues for Researching the Structures, Processes, and Meaning of On-Line Talk. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2 ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1073-1098.
• I found a set of articles in Technology, Pedagogy and Education on self-regulated learning, including one entitled 'Community and social network sites as Technology Enhanced Learning Environments' but I'm not sure that I want to go too far down this road.
• Whose space is MySpace? A content analysis of MySpace profiles (2008) - http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2202/2024
• I also need to get back to a journal-by-journal trawl for relevant articles on sensemaking, identity and social networks.

References:

Berlanga, A., Bitter-Rijpkema, Brouns, F., Sloep, P. & Fetter, S. (2009) Personal Profiles: Enhancing Social Interaction in Learning Networks. International Journal of Web Based Communities. Draft version accessed August 20, 2010 at http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/1742/1/IJWBC-Berlangaetal-draftv.1-DSpace.pdf.

Brady, K., Holcomb, L. & Smith, B. (2010) The Use of Alternative Social Networking Sites in Higher Educational Settings: A Case Study of the E-Learning Benefits of Ning in Education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 9(2), 151-170.

Buckingham, D. (2008) Introducing Identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.) Youth, Identity and Digital Media. The John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 1-24

Greenhow, C. & Robelia, B. (2009) Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology. 34(2), 119-140.

Hughes, G. (2010) Identity and belonging in social learning groups: the importance of distinguishing social, operational and knowledge-related congruence. British Educational Research Journal. 36(1) 47-63

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2007) Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with  technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.

Young, K. (2009) Online Social Networking: An Australian Perspective. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society. 7(1), 39-57.

Sensemaking

The two authors that I've used in looking at sensemaking are Weick, who looks at how people and organisations adapt systems and work practices, and Dervin, who uses sensemaking as a methodology for guiding an open exploration of people's needs.

Weick

I've mostly looked at the ideas in Weick's book, Sensemaking in Organizations (Weick, 1995) and a number of articles that reference it. He outlines seven properties of sensemaking:
1. 'Grounded in Identity construction'; 2. retrospective; 3. environments are enacted, that is, 'action is crucial for sensemaking'; 4. social; 5. ongoing; 6. uses 'extracted cues', in that people use 'simple, familiar structures' to focus on clues and gain the bigger picture; 7. 'driven by plausability rather than reason', in that people are satisfied with a result that may not be accurate but fits their purposes.

These properties are well matched with Brenda Dervin's methodology, which is also concerned with the mutability and situatedness of a sensemaking that is bound to action.

Dervin

Brenda Dervin approaches Sense-Making (her capitalisation) as a methodology, placing itself between theory and practice in the area of communication. It aims to allow the respondent more freedom in guiding discussion, encouraging narrative, self-reflection, verbs rather than nouns, and focusing on 'gaps' in knowledge and the ways in which people negotiate those gaps.

I had some trouble understanding what she meant by using verbs rather than nouns in the way research should be done. An example she gives about a library illustrated both this and her approach to open questioning. Extrapolating from her example, a typical conversation at a library info desk might be 'Do you have books on directors?', 'Yes, do you know what type of directors? Do you want film directors or television directors? Comedy or drama?' Sense making 'makes minimal use of nouns' and could ask instead "'What happened that brought you here? What questions are you trying to answer? What help would you like? If I was able to help, what would you do with it?'" (Dervin, 1998). Research librarians have said that this approach 'makes their interchanges with users both more efficient and more effective' (Dervin, 1998). She uses this approach in interviews to allow the responder more control over what they think is important or relevant.

I've found a few articles around Dervin's approach and a reader (Dervin & Foreman-Wernet, 2003) of her methodology. I've started on the reader: there is a fair amount of something close to ideology in the underpinning theory, but I think it is OK to take what I can from the methodology without being too caught up in the issue of the division of society into the information-poor and information-rich.

A diagram has been very helpful in getting a quick overview of the concepts she includes in Sense-Making, the 'gap' diagram available in Naumer, Fisher & Dervin (2008)

Nersessian

I found this tantalising as yet unpublished book:
Science as Psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice (Lisa Osbeck, Nancy J. Nersessian, Kareen Malone, Wendy Newstetter, co-authors ; Cambridge University Press, in press, 2010. It seems Prof. Nersessian also uses ethnography in her research, so it likely has some parallels with my small study. I've found a number of articles of hers that touch on her methods. In any case, the chapter headings from the book have me thinking about classification of online actions and identities: 3. The problem-solving person; 4. The feeling person; 5. The positioning person; 6. The person negotiating cultural identities; 7. The learning person. Maybe these archetypes are something to consider when conceptualising identity.


Other articles that have applied sensemaking:

Bansler, J. & Havn, E. (2005) Sensemaking in Technology-Use Mediation: Adapting Groupware Technology in Organizations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15, 55–91
- this article looks at how 'technologies are equivocal' and that mediators are important in how the technologies become understood, adapted and used.

Freedman, J. & Henderson, J. (2008) Digital Usage Behavior: A Sense Making Perspective. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
- in response to an environment, people will act where they think they have control

Kohler, V., Mirijamdotter, A., Soderhamn, O. (December, 2005) People, Technology and Work Practices: understanding the processes of sensemaking when using IT in a nursing context. Proceedings of 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems.
- 'learning is mediated through the IT', 'the specific scope of action perceived by each individual is constituted by a constant interplay between IT, its usage and the context in which the use takes place.'
- mentions Checkland and Holwell's model for Processes for Organizational Meaning 'we see ample benefits with using it as a sense making model for studying the processes in which individuals and groups create meaning while using an already existing IT artifact' - is this something that would be useful for me?? It uses something close to a soft systems diagram to map out processes and interactions.

Gephart, R. (2004) Sensemaking and New Media at Work. American Behavioral Scientist. 48, 479-495.
- 'Sensible computer-mediated communication requires users to actively find evidence that they share meanings with others in the communication, including the computer'


References:

Dervin, B., Foreman-Wernet, L. & Lauterbach, E. (Ed.s) Sense-Making Methodology Reader: Selected Writings of Brenda Dervin. Cresskill, USA: Hampton Press.
Dervin, B. (1998) Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(2).
Naumer, C., Fisher, K. & Dervin, B. (2008, April) Sense-Making: A Methodological Perspective. Sensemaking Workshop, CHI'08. Florence, Italy. Accessed May 1, 2010 from http://dmrussell.googlepages.com/Naumer-final.pdf
Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Method for Research Project

On the issue of method, I've liked the approach Nersessian (2002) has taken in her study of a science laboratory, using an ethnographic approach that combines a history of artefacts and interviews with the students and researchers using a science lab to provide a rich cultural, social and cognitive understanding of how people work and conceive ideas. My basic approach is to look at the artefacts in the social networking site - videos, photos, audio, comments, discussions and wall posts - and further enrich that understanding by talking with members of the site through discussion forums and interviews.

Taking an ethnographic approach to the research means that I will have to pay attention to patterns and possible coding and classification of what I observe, or else run the risk of incoherence. I do need to read some ethnographic reports to get more familiar with their style and methods.

From what I have read of Dervin's methodology, I will have to be careful not to be leading in my questions. The balance is to guide respondents into the general areas I'm interested in without interfering with their ideas of what is important. Reading over my initial questions, they will need some modification to do this. I was wondering which questions to include in the online forums and which to perhaps reserve for the interviews, as some subjects will be involved in both. I think the opportunity to 'circle' the same concepts in a couple of different ways (Dervin, 1998) is useful.

References:

Dervin, B. (1998) Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(2).

Nersessian, N. J., W. C. Newstetter, E. Kurz-Milcke, and J. Davies (2002). A mixed-method approach to studying distributed cognition in evolving environments. In Proceeedings of the International Conference on Learning Sciences, pp. 307 - 314. Accessed August 7, 2010 from http://clic.gatech.edu/papers/mixed-media-approach.pdf

By the bye - sensemaking in practice

By the bye,  sensemaking is what I am attempting to do at work, where we are working on what the next steps should be in enhancing our online learning environment. I like the idea that, really, any strategic plan will do as long as it gets people moving and oriented; it is up to them then to keep mindful of the cues that result from their actions and continually update their actions and purpose accordingly - it is actions rather than plans that show them where they are and where they want to be and determine success. Sensemaking emphasis on bold action that shapes the environment, rather than getting bogged down in negative deliberation, is attractive when the situation is complex - a simplified view is the way to get action. If a plan sounds plausible and reasonable, it is good enough if it generates the action that actually produces the outcome, however different that may be from the initial idea.

As part of this subject, I'd like to look further into how designers or learning technologists work with teachers and institutions to conceive of and design learning environments.

Knowledge creation

At Lina's suggestion, rather than looking at communities of practice I am concentrating more on the general idea of knowledge creation, which I think fits a lot better into the micro level analysis I'll be doing. For this, I've been reading Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005), who in turn use Bereiter, Engestrom (use of socially constructed artefacts) and Nonaka and Takeuchi's several approaches to knowledge creation. I hope to find some concepts on which to hang my analysis and suggest questions and topics to cover with research subjects and artefacts.

Artefacts can be concepts, processes, practices, products (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). Tacit vs explicit knowledge and the interaction between them (eg tacit-tacit, tacit-explicit, explicit-explicit transfer) within a social learning setting.
Paavola & Hakkarainen's (2005) components of knowledge building: Question generation, theory formation = 'social practices... that guide participants to jointly articulate and advance preliminary problems and theories'; 'object-orientedness'; students see themselves as 'a prospective builder or creator of knowledge rather than just a 'student'
Vygotsky idea of learning as mediated (1978 in Paavola and Hakkarainen, 2005)

Identity and knowledge creation: 'A critical condition for success appears to be that the voices (Bakhtin 1981) of participants of an inquiry community become socially recognized and respected. Once may say that participants of progressive inquiry are not only working for knowledge advancement, but "authoring" their selves as well (cf., Holland et al. 1998, p. 169).' (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005)
From this, a question for respondents might be: do you feel you have an active and respected role amongst other students through your online contributions? Are there students who you see as useful to the general advancement of learning and knowledge?

It would be useful to locate some empirical studies that apply the ideas of knowledge creation to the analysis of interaction and artefact.

I'm not sure whether the activity I'll be analyzing will be terribly rich in knowledge creation examples. I'm wondering if it will end up that I am drawing a fairly long bow; the basic social networking character of the target site is in contrast to something like Scardamalia and Bereiter's (2006) 'knowledge forum' that is purposely scaffolded to support knowledge creation. It might be interesting is if there is at least some evidence of knowledge creation evident without the presence of scaffolding - a way to see knowledge creation 'in the wild'.

Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005) The Knowledge Creation Metaphor - An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science & Education 14, 535-557
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006) Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology. In Sawyer, R.K. (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of The Learning Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 97-115

Intro to Research Project

I'm interested in how different people interact online - how they make sense of a set of tools and their relationship with them and with other people. I'm interested in why and how they act - or don't. How they conceive a space, how they see themselves as actors and how they perceive others as they interact with them. How a group can achieve a shared understanding of an online space.

Based on this, I'm concentrating on using 'sensemaking' as the central idea for my research project. The project is situated in a social networking site for AFTRS, where I work as a learning technologist. I'm the administrator of the site. The project has passed ethics approval and I am now refining concepts and working on appropriate questions and selecting subjects.

I'll attach my research proposal, though it is written with my previous subject's, Designing a Research Project, aims in mind. It is not written wholly from the perspective of an ethnography, which is the basic approach I'll be using, instead taking a rather more positivist tone than it probably should. However, it generally lays out my project and approach. On talking with Lina, I'm not focusing on social presence or community of practice.

Sensemaking, identity and knowledge creation are what I'm concentrating on.

Research Proposal (if you're interested!)

What I'm doing with this blog

This blog is partly to satisfy requirements for my current Masters course module 'Research Frontiers' and partly as a scratch pad to work out some ideas.