 | Power in the connections |
|
Some similarities in discussing the combination of power, learning and networks were explored in an article by Fox, S. (2000). Communities of practice, Foucault and actor-network theory. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 853-867. The article looked at Lave and Wengers communities of practice bringing in a consideration for power in the nodes and the weight or force of the connections all inside of an actor-network analysis. There is scope here for exploring some issues relevant to connectivism as a learning theory. I think there are issues to do with: How knowledge is given legitimacy/or not. How this knowledge is distributed/ or not. This leads to how knowledge or skills remains intact but there is no clash because the networks do not intersect. Or that alliances get built between networks that add stability to certain knowledge constructions. The unequal relations of power between nodes (people or networks) can be considered with regard to strength of impact, stability, and connectedness. The benevolence or malevolence of the power relationship might then be looked at in terms of whether it adds to or takes away from the strength of a network. The productive or subtractive effects of power being a measure of how power might be made more visible, and hence leading to a transparency where it is also possible to consider how things might be done 'otherwise'. Context is critical in this understanding. ANT, and Foucault, and Connectivism all work inside of reality not existing 'out there' but being relational. Power is therefore not a given state of things, but is in the forces of action and inaction, and might also be 'otherwise'. Such force may or may not be deliberate, and such force may be imbedded in human or non human actors. The capacity to connect by computer,laptop,mobile phone becomes one of these actors, the service provider being another, whether the service provided is broadband or dial-up being another...such things have influence that make certain things more and less likely, and that in discerning this we might also discern that things might be otherwise. In being open to considering what keeps things the same or being able to consider that things might be otherwise, I would argue this provides potential for a critical educational pedagogical position. What such an analysis does for me is to make me see how the cloth is woven, what creates sustains and/or reduces or destroys the network, and similarly how knowledge is created, sustained or displaced. And what might be considered in making it otherwise. |
 | Re: Power in the connections |
|
Thanks for that Ailsa. You raise some really important issues. I had already seen the Fox article. I am currently reading Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge, inspired by an earlier discussion at CCK08 (Tom Gillibrand and Roy Williams I think). I am trying to extend my understanding of how knowledge is legitimated and distributed and your argument really helps. You said "ANT, and Foucault, and Connectivism all work inside of reality not existing 'out there' but being relational." That is the case, but I wonder if there is a difference in the way these theories treat relations (of which power is an important component). Connectivism is about knowledge, and is also knowledge itself. When reading the course materials, and engaging in the discussion about Groups and Networks, I discerned a determinism - if we apply connectivism,we can change a situation. Admittedly, in his mid-course review video, George Siemens acknowledged differences between himself and Stephen Downes in their approaches to groups and networks. This idea of using connectivism as a theory for changing things identifies it as a prescriptive theory (in some ways) whereas ANT and post-modernism are descriptive. As you can see, my critique is nascent but I wanted to share it in progress. |
| Re: Power in the connections |
|
Thanks for the further provocations Frances. Each does have a relational effect within practice so there's a thread pulling them together. But Foucault's power could be seen as nebulous. If it sits in knowledge that is inert... (dont know enough about this) Actor network theory (ANT) only accepts power effects when they can be seen/traced in action. And does not ever take a determinist stance. Is always situated, is always local. And could always be otherwise with a different aggragation of actors, changes in the shape configuration of the network,,, Connectivism I am also unsure of. I have read the discussion on it being deterministic via a behaviourist analysis, but am not convinced. i still see the this causes that analysis as too superficial and underrepresents the multiplicity mess or chaos going on. What this discussion expands on for me is the force or power in the impact between this and that and that and that...What is brought to bear with force (or neglect). That things are altered in a relational way. And whats worse, is I find myself dreaming this now.  |
 | Re: Power in the discourses /assemblages |
|
Hi, Ailsa, great post. Thanks. It's a neat walk-through of the key issues and conceptual tools. I see this partly within ANT and partly within Foucauldian discourse. To wit ... In the 1930's a woman in a rural community who was clearly suffering from post-natal depresssion killed her newborn child, and was declared insane, and detained at a mental hospital. In the 1980's a friend of mine who took up the post of medical superintendant there came across this woman and decided she needed to be released back into her community. She had completely lost touch with her community (which was over 300 miles away) and the community had been disrupted or even detroyed by Apartheid politics. There was no where and no one for her to go to, and she had to stay. She was also in no condition to look after herself, mentally. So what happens here? She commits infanticide, and is subjected to the 'gaze' or the 'discourse' of psychiatry, which commits her indefinitely, and she is treated as 'insane'. Here 'insanity' is inscribed onto/ into her mind to such an extent that she is no longer capable of leaving. However, if she had been subjected to the 'gaze' / discourse of criminal justice, and been declared of sound mind - but temporarily insane - she might have ended up in a prison hospital for a few years, until she had got back to her 'old self' and then been released back into her community - which presumably was still intact at that stage. Its horrific, but it makes the point that it is not 'knowledge' in the abstract, but the application of knowledge within particular discourses that matters, and which delivers 'justice' or 'injustice' in the end. This kind of "procedural knowledge" (or formalised knowledge) is subsumed within strategic knowledge, or Latour's reassembled social (and political norms and institutions), and it is there that power is exercised, via the articulations of i) procedural knowlege (which is propositional, Connectivism notwithstanding, and also powerful, as well as potentially 'violent') ii) Communities of Practice / Discourse Communities which are not, fundamentally, sites of "individual" freedom but, in this case, collective power. both of the above are created, maintained, and adapted from time to time within networks, in which animate and inanimate entities have to be connected, of course. (See Epistemology of Knowlege and the Knowledge Process Cycle, Journal of Knowledge Management 2008 if you want the long version of the distinction between procedural and strategic knowledge). |
| Re: Power in the discourses /assemblages |
|
Thankyou for this Roy, knowledge is contextually bound as your example shows. Whats seen as temporary insanity or a post partum psychosis or criminal...is an example of knowledge as held by the network. The DSM is full of such debated diagnostic criteria. However other examples are also available. Arteriosclerosis studied by Annmarie Mol in the body multiple demonstrates how this too is a multiple entity; that the disease presumed to be a single entity is performed and experienced differently by different actors. It can be a disorder of pain/ or not...it can be a disease of anatomy or of haematology...the networks involved in seeing it one way or another sometimes collide also. Its a bit like seeing one scientific method and then discovering not all the rest of the research world are quantitatively persuaded. Then identifying oneself as qualitative....and then there are multiple experiences of this also ... And even where the same qualitative methodology might be referred to, every single enactment or performance also differs. The network constructs each occurrence with difference. And the reflective researcher is inside of this also...not rising above or ouside of such analysis, but in the belly of the animal (Donna Haraway ) or as Latour indicates, performing yet another story among many. |
| Re: Power in the discourses /assemblages |
|
Ailsa, interesting. My examples of psychological perspectives is possibly more obvious than the 'physical' examples you cite, which are in a sense more interesting, because they deal with diagnoses that 'should' be less contested. I see what you're saying that the 'network constructs each occurrence with difference' but for my own analysis I have to conceptualise different networks - different Foucauldian discourses. They overlap, act simultaneously and paradoxically, but they are still different: Knorr-Cetina's micro-global structures (or networks) are the best developed model I have seen, of 'post-Foucauldian' discourses and discourse communities. On another track, Paul Cilliers writes in the same vein as you do in your last paragraph (i.e. there is no 'outside'), but from a rigorously developed understanding of complexity theory. He goes further than that, though, and takes it directly into ethics. |
| Re: Power in the discourses /assemblages |
|
George,my frustration is somewhat different, but there are many overlaps. I like Dave Snowden's work, and his insistence on context. However, his earlier papers (2002) seemed to say context is everything, which really didnt make sense, particularly as he prides himself on being a natural scientist who can teach social science a thing or two (he does have something of a point there). So, I spent some time trying to map it out, and the current mapping is attached. (The next iteration, not yet published, includes complexity more explicitly). What I arrived at is quite a simple framework (it get interesting when you apply it more broadly and historically but that's another conversation). The basic story goes like this: 1. There's currently a massive bloom in ante-formal (nee: informal) information and knowledge, courtesy of social networking. It is, en passant, recorded gossip, information, thoughts in progress, conversations, wild ideas, thoughtful, caring responses, etc etc. So contextualised that it looks like 'just anecdotal' - ah, but its recorded, digitally, so it can be taken further in a way that verbal face-2-face conversations often cant - they vanish, literally, into thin air. 2. This can usefully be seen as ante-formal, as it has not (yet) been formalised, but potentially feeds into formalised information and knowledge (e.g., I take your post here, copy into a wiki, weeks later include that in a paper for a conference, etc etc) 3. Formal knowledge (start with positivist science) radically strips out context and subjectivity - not because its nasty and inhuman, but because that's how you create knowledge as capital - literally, i.e. a trade-able commodity - which means anyone can take it to any other context, and use it there. You can 'extract' and 'abstract' an algorithm, parcel it up, unpack it somewhere else, and use it, with a high degree of predictable outcomes. 4. So, how do we get back to context? Two ways, and they overlap. 4.1 Contextual analysis is, strangely, part of formalised knowledge - lots of social science and marketing analysis, not to mention epidemiology, is formalised contextual analysis, and attempts to apply positivist methods to complex phenomena (if you're upfront and honest about the error bars, it works to a useful extent). 4.2 You then have to look in the formalised procedural knowledge box, look in the formalised contextual analysis box, and come up with a way to fit all this within your particular context of application. This fit iterates, as the context here is: institutional, financial, technical, environmental, social, personal, cultural, political. 4.3 This is the hazardous business of strategic knowledge - a fit of fits, and its best if you get yourself some alliances in communities of practice to consolidate your position and your strategy. There are lots of networks here, but I have to differentiate them, on epistemic and ontological grounds. Networks include: physical, semiotic, ante-formal, formalised, strategic, communities of practice, alliances. Are they part of networks of networks? For sure. Some function ante-formally (lots nowadays) some formally and transparently, some formally and secret, some strategic and shared in an in-group of your choice, some strategic and shared in part in strategic alliances, networked through outsourcing etc. |
| Re: Power in the discourses /assemblages |
|
Continued (sorry, I was timed out there) .... In the case of the theory of psychiatry and the politics of power, the politics of power is about patronage, exclusion, and pollution (of space, of comfort, of convenience, of the CoPatronage, etc). It took a long time for the science to win through, and even now, its contestable. Education, and educational theory, there must be a role for it, but I think the dynamics have changed. I thing there is crucial task for research here: rather than social network analysis, a conceptual network analysis (or a network analysis of concepts as actors / actants). Simply, how do ideas morph from one blog, email, discussion post, online conference, RSS feed, face-2-face, etc interaction, within what networks, physical, social, virtual, material, serependipitous, emergent, predictable? There is a sense in which the 'connectivity is all' - but I would say at least 'the networking is all' - in the sense that networking is more than connection, if you see what I mean. A McKinsey report on what concepts actually do in the capillaries of social networks (if you get my mash-taphor), could be decisive. I dont think experts and power and explicit patronage are going to cut it much longer. A viral theory of change management? A guerilla (war of the flea) theory of social change? I think experts are anachronous. Masters, OK, and mastery should be recognised. Genius awards, great. The Japanese have state funded mastery awards - for life, in many fields, including flower arranging (could be wrong on the particulars, but not the thust of it). But experts? And within the spirit of 'connectivism' if I get it right, what we might be looking for is a rolling feast of global micro-structures, or micro-networks, and JAMs like this one (rough as it has been) and the JAM I was part of last year could be part of the repertoire of a new global learning network of affordances. Unconferences is another key aspect of the new learning repertoire. Stucturing complexity anyone? Trick is, to make it navigable. Inter-navigability, rather than inter-operability is one way to go, but its not a simple task. |
 | Confusion |
|
George wonders: >how does the so-called knowledge of educators calling for reform to the system become of a strategic variety that catches the attention of voters and politicians? Do we wait for a well-informed individual (an expert) to acquire a leadership position? Roy replies: >I think experts are anachronous. Masters, OK, and mastery should be recognised. Ken asks: 1. What is the difference between masters and experts? 2. What would be the motivation for a voter or politician to heed the call for system reform if there are no (connectivist) experts in education? 2a. What would be the motivation for a voter or politician to heed the call for system reform if there are no experts in education? 3. Would it be possible to shorten the time line for 'expertise' acquisition, (Gardner's 10-year horizon as per George). 4. Is the question more like "How best do we learn" (to develop understanding leading to expertise) rather than "How do we learn" (as in knowledge residing in the connections). I wonder if connectivism has adequately addressed the 'quality' component of learning, other than to note distribution, access, openness, diversity, autonomy etc. What about the quality of the understanding component of learning? Does connectivism address this? I don't see mention of understanding In this statement from the readings: >Connectivism is essentially the assertion that knowledge is networked and distributed, and the act of learning is the creation and navigation of networks. Yet in an above post I see this: >Expertise in a field involves more than knowledge – it requires understanding when certain types of knowledge are required and how they are to be enacted. HELP! (me with my understanding - I have connected to the knowledge, but don't get it! Clearly, I have no expertise in this matter!) |
| Re: Confusion |
|
Ken, just an idea... Experts: people who have polished their competencies in a specific, well defined field. Super-specialists. Recognised by explicit, fixed, criteria: a paper audit would suffice. Self-referencing. Masters: people who have developed and honed their approach to a problem domain, and who might or might not be 'expert' in all the subsidiary competencies. Recognised by tacit, negotiable, contextually variable relationships: you would have to engage with them, preferably in appropriate practice, to accord 'mastery'. Community (of practice, enquiry, faith, etc) referenced. Experts are great at performing specific tasks, and self-assessment. Masters show superior understanding through contextualised practice, and might be flummoxed by the idea of self-assessment. Something to do with new roles? Most politicians operate within the short-term horizon of the next election (only). They have no use for mastery, they need out-sourced experts. I dont know if this is useful to you, but it has certainly concentrated my mind on the matter! P.S. 'Masters' degrees, in theology, used to be in the 'gift' of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who awarded them for mastery demonstrated over many years of practice, and generally awarded about one per year. |
 | Re: Confusion |
|
Perhaps a better question(s) might be: What is the quality of connectivism as a theory, and in practice? What is the quality in this phrase: >knowledge is networked and distributed, and the act of learning is the creation and navigation of networks How would this 'understanding' of knowledge help with the understanding of understanding? |
| Re: Confusion |
|
Yes and no. See the bottom part of this entry . |
| Re: Power in the connections |
|
I have posted on the question of whether or not connectivism is a knowledge network in its own terms - comments would be most welcome. http://francesbell.com/2008/11/09/cck08-is-connectivism-a-learning-network/ |
 | Re: Power in the connections |
|
Frances, I was not able to comment to your blog post for some reason. AS I was reading it, I could see a high level ontology behind the structure of the post. Good for you. I fould it made the post really clear to understand. As for connectivism ias a knowledge network in its own terms, I would say yes. There are many poeple in this course that had no or little connection to connectism or connectivism prior. I knew Stephen Downes through some presentaitons to conferences I had attended, but really had not paid much attention to what he said (sorry Stephen). It took this course to ram it home to me. As such, I think I am likely to pay more attention to this subject, Stephen, and now George. I had subsrcibed to George's weekly "newsletter" and found some occasional good info, but of limited practically. Now that I know what he is talking about, it makes a lot more sense and I can use his informaiton much more coherently. There were others in the course that I knew from prior encouters: 1. Louise Cote from RMC whom I met at a DNDLearn conference and discovered she had re-written the online history course I mentor for. 2. Jay from DNDLeanr and the some conference but whom I ahd not spoke to since. 3. Jeanine St AMand, who is the DEC chair for my local school district to whom I now feed intersting K-12 educaiton and educaiton articles I find and I have commited myself to voluunteering to help figure out how to use technology in teaching in Fredericton. Through a forum post, I discovered Academia.edu and have posted my particluras there. I can even upload my thesis and other papers there without the need for creating a perosnal Website! Through Stephens recent OLE Daily post on oDEsk, I have signed myself up to do some on the side work to enhance my day job performance development plan. That site also has provided an opportunity to solve my companies occasional human resource shortages. My company wants a full briefing on what I learned form the course and I have been asked to create a presentation on connectivism and connectionism and its implications for our business. I will be adding many of the resources to our internal Informaiton arhcitecture resources base and will contiunue to promote the use of technology tools (I myelsf am a poor user of RSS). This is just a start, but I plan on keep on coming back. |
| Re: Power in the connections |
|
Bradley, Apologies that you couldn't post comments - that was because of HTML problems associated with my cutting and pasting from Word to Wordpress - grrrrr!!. As you can see, that is now sorted http://francesbell.com/2008/11/09/cck08-is-connectivism-a-learning-network/#comments. I agree that connectivism is a knowledge network in many ways but hope that my critique raises interesting questions about the nature of that network. |
| Re: Power in the connections |
|
Francis, great start to a critique. Some thoughts: 1. What's so special? Quite a few years ago I was working on a national policy commission on the application of the internet for learning, and late one night we stumbled on the answer to the question: "well, what's so special about it?" and the answer was: "not much, really, it just does what any good teacher has always done - it makes interesting links to things that aren't in the classroom". So, OK, you can now click and browse yourself, or get your RSS to do some of that for you, and a whole lot of other things, but no, it hasnt changed fundamentally in function, just in the execution and democratisation of that function. 2. A constructive critique? I have been busy writing a critique of connectivism in my own head for some time and I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate on a critique. For me the best way to do that is to start a single-task wiki, and I have set up one on wikispaces at: http://web2learningtheory.wikispaces.com/ The constructive critique that I have in mind has two parts (edit to taste) ... 1. What doesnt work for me in 'connectivism' ? 2. What would a web 2.0 learning theory look like? And I hasten to say that I dont think that #2 cant be derived directly from #1 - precisely because we need to look a bit further afield, and play connectivism at its own game (if I understand you correctly). I am not interested in 'contesting' connectivism, rather I am (as I think you are) interested in taking on the G&S project on its own terms, and the 'project' is to see if we can put a web2.0 (3.0 if you like, whose counting?) learning theory together. If you like the idea, please join me on the wiki. If you have a better wiki you would rather use, please set up one and I will join your at 'yours' as it were. It should be an open wiki, but I am willing to put in some controls, and share admin rights amongst a few of us to do so. Everyone is welcome to participate. Openess with some constaints, in other words, I want to get some work done on this - collaboratively. |
| Re: Power in the connections |
|
Great initiative Roy - I'll certainly contribute. In terms of your two questions, I think I might start with What does work for me in connectivism? since I detect a great attraction of connectivism to practicing teachers, this must be a great strength and potential for improvement for connectivism. I like your point about not 'contesting connectivism'. I would articulate my own position as an actor who wishes to increase the exposure of connectivism (another actor) to a broader knowledge network. |
 | Re: Power in the connections |
| I concur, this is a great idea. It would be interesting to see an extended critique structured in this way. |
. | Re: Power in the connections |
|
George, sure, but it'll take a while to get it together - maybe in 10 days time, if there is still room at the Elluminate table! Thanks for the invite. I agree web2 is a little dated and limited. For now its just a hook to hang some conceptual work on. We'll see how it develops. I am interested in trying out a 'house rule' that I last used many years ago (for a wall newspaper), i.e. "try to post thoughts that other people have posted, not your own". |
| Re: Power in the connections |
|
I would be interested in helping, if my help would be of value. My concerns with connectivism to date have included: a) the name - another 'ism'? 'connection' seems overused. {As a parody, I coined the term Connecti-vision (connect and you will see) in one of my early blog posts as a result of my distaste for names and jingoes} b) the jingoes - learning is in the connection, pipe more important than content c) the extrapolation from connectionism to connectivism, and the resulting confusion (to me anyway) and the mixing of the use of these two terms (another name issue) I don't know that these types of concerns would be of any value to the direction you may be headed. Namewise, a suggestion (to replace the word connectivism): Internet Learning Theory |
| Re: Power in the connections |
|
I'd be very happy to contribute to an Elluminate Session - when were you thinking of ? I am busy on 26 November BTW. Ailsa Haxwell would be a good contributor to this discussion, I think. I have already made an initial contribution to Roy's wiki and would be very pleased to receive comments from you and Stephen D on my critique at http://francesbell.com/2008/11/09/cck08-is-connectivism-a-learning-network/ I am particularly interested to hear your views on links (or not) between Connectivism and Actor-Network theory. |