I've been at the CADE 2007 conference for the last several days. I've had the opportunity to be involved in numerous panels, presentations, and (most importantly) lunch/dinner/beverage conversations with Stephen Downes, Dave Cormier, Terry Anderson, and others. As is generally the case, the real learning happens in the hallways, not in the sessions. During the afternoon panel, Terry presented his current research slant on defining groups, networks, and collectives. I agree with the concepts he is attempting to describe. It brings to the forefront the power of naming things. When we name things (web 2.0, long tail, etc) we apply organization to a concept, and in the process, set boundaries. When we assign names too soon (when the concept is still emerging), I think our act of naming influences future directions (which can be negative). I personally don't object to the term collective...I'm curious as to whether the concept of networks isn't sufficient...and that collectives are an example of networks formed by groups rather than individuals (i.e. it's still a type of network). Perhaps group and collective are fine, but network is the meta-component that encompasses both...and what is now termed network in Terry's research should be called "individual".
Stephen has posted comments on the conference (Applications and Theory of Social Software and Elearning in Canada: Evidence, Gaps, and Promising Directions)...as has Dave: Day 1 and Day 2
Posted by gsiemens at May 17, 2007 3:03 PM | TrackBack