 | ants |
|
Anyone interested in ant (actor-network theory) intersecting with connectivism? Jo mentioned a possibility in the introductions, but how might we negotiate such a learning space? There are possibilities such as a thread in each weeks forum for this field of interest, or a wiki, or a collective blog...any other suggestions? I believe there is an advantage using the forum space in that it stays visible and open to anyone curious in cck09. There's also a personal, selfish, time limited, myopic interest on my part- if i only come in to spaces labeled ant, I am not spread too thin  and the bonus for others without an ant interest is that i stop contaminating their spaces. So I will kick this one off."What is knowledge" is a provocation from old socs in the 'what is connectivism' thread, and it is my belief ant addresses this, for example, ...the object that is known and the subject that does the knowing are co-produced in the same performance, that the epistemological problem (what is true) and the ontological question (what is) are both resolved (or not) in the same moment. (p. 3) Ref Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2000). This is Not an Object. Centre for Science Studies and the Department of sociology, Lancaster University. So whats known (knowledge) is only ever an outcome of association, a transient thing, a shapeshifter; produced, altered and transmitted in association. This supposition demonstrates congruence between actor-network theory and connectivism as a learning theory, knowledge is only ever in the networks. |
 | Re: ants |
| How does knowledge, created in a moment (even if of short duration), equate to 'not a thing'? |
| Re: ants |
|
Thankyou for the provocation, and if i haven't answered your question clearly enough or miss the point, please do come back to me. My premise is that knowledge is unstable. not 'a' thing, not 'one' thing. Its insubstantial, created by the tensions involved (work) holding it in place within the net. Hence it exists as consequence of the 'network' if I use actor-network theory terms. From whatever point knowledge is perceived, it will show variation, so even if you and I shared some knowledge, it would still have to 'exist' in ways connected to me or to you, slightly different. Taking this a step further in ant terms, its not simply a matter of perception, it actually is different and is known and acted on differently. There is an 'ontological choreography' at play. There is no easy fix where we would share the same perception if we moved around. To explain this further I draw on the work of Annemarie Mol, and how she looked at arteriosclerosis: To a surgeon arteriosclerosis is a silted up blood vessel to clear, to a pathologist it is only known post mortem, to a haematologist it is a disorder compounded by clotting and an inability to carry enough oxygen, to a physiotherapist it may be a walking problem limiting mobility, and to a person with it- it is pain. Very very different lived experiences, each acted upon very differently. As Mol would have it, this disorder and our knowledge of it, is an example of the 'body multiple'. Even where there is something pretty concrete, what we discover by looking at the performances of those involved in its treatment is that it's so much more than a single entity, it is multiple. Knowledge is therefore multiple. Knowledge is no(one)thing. And expanding on this further, knowledge as it occurs inside of me, is also co-constructive, what i know -also has me... (i expect some readers will start backing off at this point). However for my own benefit here goes an extended attempt in answering 'what is knowledge'... If "The whole outside universe is composed of souls different from mine, but, in effect, similar to mine'' p.44 (Latour citing Tarde) and if we/you/I concede that in knowing something, I only know it in as much as I can fathom, recognise and/or project my beliefs about its being anything at all, then part of me is in everything I meet... Expressing this differently, there is a sort of difference that has you, the speaker, as proprietor. Possession is another way of talking of this... and i/we/you may not be comfortable with being 'had'.  References Latour, B. (2002). Gabriel Tarde and the end of the social. In P. Joyce (Ed.), The social in question. New bearings in history and the social sciences (pp. 117-132). London Routledge. http://www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/082.html Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. London: Duke University Press. |
| Re: ants |
|
Yesterday I purchased a 'needs assembly' bookcase at my local hardware store. Inside was a list of instructions suggesting 'how to' assemble the bookcase. As I assembled it this morning, I wondered whether the knowledge existed in the instructions, and whether it was transferred to me as I made the assembly. I do feel that I now possess at least some of the knowledge that the creator of the instruction sheet possesses. Is this what you mean by networking and knowledge creation/usage/transference? |
| Re: ants |
|
The instructions like a map, are a way of moving knowledge from one place to another. In ant terms the instruction artefact helps stabilise the knowledge in going from one context to another. Latour refers to such transportation devices as immutable mobiles. Latour tells a story about French explorers in Southeast Asia. The explorers stop and ask the local natives if the bit of land they are on is an island or a peninsula. In response, the oldest of the natives drops to the sand and draws a map of the island. His son sees the tide is about to wash out the map, so retraces it in the European's logbook. What makes the immutable mobile powerful is that it allows coalition building around an idea. If the French explorer wants his fellow explorers to believe the land he saw was an island, he can show his map. More importantly, that map can be compared against other maps to show discrepancies. This does not mean exact information emerges, or that the natives know less about the land they live on, what it means is that the concept of "this land is an island" is vastly accelerated by the map as an immutable mobile. |
| Re: ants |
| So the Bookcase Instruction Sheet (BIS) is an immutable mobile that is a method by which to transfer knowledge. The BIS would then be considered a container of knowledge, and the instructions therein would be considered knowledge, if I understand correctly. Is this the case? |
| Re: ants |
|
yes, but the instructions are still the thoughts of someone, this 'knowledge' is but captured, clotted if you will doesnt mean its the only way, doesnt mean that things couldn't be different |
| Re: ants |
|
Hi, I'm listening to Downes at the beginning of the previous Elluminate session. It appears that he would disagree that knowledge was transferred, or captured etc. in the BIS. What do you think of his ideas? Further in, Downes and Siemens focus on connection. The definition is that the connection is such that a change in state in one (node) may impact/cause a change of state in a connected (node). Sounds stimulus/response-like to me. |
| Re: ants |
|
If I were to accept his ideas, i might suggest the BIS is an artefact of knowledge. Ant might also credit the BIS with being an actor in its own right...however i am pretty sure that CCK would not. In Ant the BIS could be seen as a non-human actor that has impact, note this is not to suggest agency. I really dislike the behaviourist slant on stimulus response. It suggests too lineal approach whereas with changes the effects are very often non-lineal, not known, and/or not anticipated. I am more than happy to accept a more spider-web analogy. Movement here creates movement there. Law of physics maybe. But not because of proximity, in actor-network terms, the connection or movement has to be traceable. Some off the cuff thinking: when i write (and only speaking for myself here) I clarify my thinking...sometimes i dont know my thinking until i am writing, seems it grows in the thinking...what's written captures this, at least some of this...and very often that thinking or knowledge would not have occurred without the writing...is there knowledge then in the writing? With my mobile phone, I outsource some of my thinking, I don't bother memorizing phone numbers. In writing too I outsource some of the details of my thinking. For example I don't attend to who said what very often. Its just new thoughts I accommodate and which alter other thoughts... sometimes unconsciously... often unconsciously. But I still have to get it inside of my head for it to have an effect. Those books on a shelf that might in common parlance be 'holding knowledge' don't interact to produce new knowledge without some intermediaries (people). But people also don't often produce new knowledge in isolation, they interact with something, whether its the artefacts of knowledge (books etc) or other people thinking aloud or doing things that trigger further thinking. |
 | Re: ants |
|
Well, you know that I am interested in links between ant and connectivism but I wonder if it might not be an even better idea to have a space to aggregate discussions about links between connectivism and other theories. I don't know about using cloudworks, friendfeed or diigo. I might ask my Twitter network. What do you think Alisa and others? |
 | Re: ants |
|
Steven Johnson's book is likely to be your library already. |
| Re: ants |
|
Thanks Darcy, no its not in my library (yet), but some of the ideas are. I will have to look out for it. The myopic ant is one of Latour's meatphors for flattening the terrain as it were in studying social sciences. The more is different is certainly an experience i have noted in my own studies. (Am looking at how text messaging is impacting within a youth telephone counselling agency). Clay Shirkey in 'here comes everyone' talks a little about the problems associated with scale. And the increase intersections is a major feature of Johansson's The Medici effect. What elephants and epidemics can teach us about innovation. |
| Re: ants |
| In that case, with epidemics in mind, you should look out for Johnson's The Ghost Map and RSS from his blog too. |
 | Re: ants |
| Ed Webb has started a Diigo place here: http://groups.diigo.com/groups/cck0809 |
 | Re: ants and other theories |
|
Until these first days of CCK09 I have recognized that My perspective cannot be only to study connectivism, I want to follow all appropriate theories and modellings about online learning . I'll study in my blog and try to find time to groups mentioned in this thread. I have a hunch that ant is interesting, I copied ailsa's "a part of me is in everything I meet" (by Latour). That is very true, I know it at once. It is fine to learn more and more.. |