Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[cp] Re: "communities of practice" F2F vs online

Expand Messages
  • joitske
    Hi Roy, My first reaction is: I don t have a clue (I m also speculating here and throwing in some ideas :)). Probably the generation Einstein is as comfortable
    Message 1 of 74 , Mar 12, 2007
      Hi Roy,

      My first reaction is: I don't have a clue (I'm also speculating here
      and throwing in some ideas :)). Probably the generation Einstein is
      as comfortable communicating online as face-to-face, so the shift
      will come with generations. On the other hand, I can imagine the
      pitfall will remain that you are stuck in your own preferences,
      creating miscommunication. So the optimal blending will be more
      complex. And we may have to deal for a long time with the fact that
      people in communities of practice will be a mix of the Einsteiners
      and the computer illiterates. So we may need brokers.

      In the bus I overheard a girl on the phone who broke up with her
      boyfriend and half of the arguments had to do with communication. She
      had intended to call, but ran out of call credit, therefore waited
      till thursday, but when she saw him on MSN she didn't know she had to
      work etc. etc. (in my old days things were much easier :)

      But others may have better ideas about this than I have. What do you
      think?

      Joitske

      --- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, Roy Greenhalgh <rgreenh@...> wrote:
      >
      > Joitske
      >
      > Interesting note.
      >
      > Could you speculate what the conditions are that will cause this
      > paradigm shift?
      >
      > Regards..
      >
      > Roy Greenhalgh
      >
      > joitske wrote:
      >
      > >Hi to you all,
      > >
      > >This discussion reminded me of a blogpost I read (the link is here
      > >http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2005/01/movable_distanc.html) and
      > >which is piled up on my -to-blog- pile. It is called movable
      > >distance, technology, nearness and farness. I thought it was
      great.
      > >
      > >It tries to shed light on the issue of how technology is changing
      our
      > >ideas about distance. I agree when they state that a lot of
      > >judgements about communication carries with it a bias towards face-
      to-
      > >face communication as the prime model for communication. "Are
      there
      > >really no circumstances under which we could argue that having an
      IM
      > >chat with someone in the next cubicle is preferable to having a
      face-
      > >to-face conversation?" I think that is the case with the
      discussion
      > >about f2f versus online communities too.
      > >
      > >I think in the long run, we should all become a lot smarter at
      > >choosing between the two modalities (online and face-to-face), but
      > >currently the difficulty is that for a lot of people face-to-face
      is
      > >the best, and the online is some lesser substitute. When this
      > >paradigm will have changed, I think communities of practice will
      > >start using the online and face-to-face mix in a much better way
      than
      > >they are doing now. (sorry for generalizing, some may already be
      > >smart enough).
      > >
      > >Joitske
      > >
      > >--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@>
      > >wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >>Fred,
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>You wrote:
      > >>
      > >>" FWIW, I think they form a community of interest. Do I think
      they
      > >>
      > >>
      > >form
      > >
      > >
      > >>a community of practice? Nope."
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>I agree with you. However I don't think it has much with the F2F
      vs
      > >>
      > >>
      > >online
      > >
      > >
      > >>thing. heck even online psychiatry and online groups for
      illnesses
      > >>
      > >>
      > >are
      > >
      > >
      > >>proven to be effective so let's drop the argument that online
      stuff
      > >>
      > >>
      > >can't
      > >
      > >
      > >>work for everybody. It's a bogus and uninformed statement and a
      > >>
      > >>
      > >gross
      > >
      > >
      > >>generalization (like "I can't feel a community online" -
      > >>"EVERYBODY THINKS
      > >>MY SAME THOUGHTS" -> "Communities cannot be formed online"). Did
      I
      > >>
      > >>
      > >say
      > >
      > >
      > >>ladder of inference <grin>?
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>However I do appreciate that the persons that feel limited online
      > >>
      > >>
      > >don't
      > >
      > >
      > >>venture doing stuff online.. They wouldn't know how to.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM
      > >>
      > >>"Experience is that marvellous thing that enables you to
      recognize
      > >>
      > >>
      > >a mistake
      > >
      > >
      > >>when you make it again."
      > >>
      > >>-- Franklin P. Jones
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >*-- The email forum on communities of practice --*
      > >Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • l_r_i
      The short answer is that WE,
      Message 74 of 74 , Apr 19, 2007
        <<One of the most pressing issues on my mind is the one Steve raises
        re: who is the person that unifies the various identities.>>

        The short answer is that WE, each of us, does not unify our
        identities. We present them to the world and other people unify them
        for us. We are left from situation to situation trying to figure out
        how they've done it, hence our comfort with old friends.

        Years ago, when conceptions of the "social" still influenced social
        psychology, the issues of multiple identities was dealt with in terms
        of personality and character. Eriving Goffman's "Presentation of Self
        in Everyday Life" and "Frame Analysis" are obvious choices for this
        kind of discussion. C. Wright Mills and Hans Gerth's "Character and
        Social Structure" (1953) also comes to mind. But, I like the summary
        of the issue offered in Jane Morgan, Christopher O'Neill, and Rom
        Harre's "Nicknames: Their Origins and Social Consequences" (1979).

        They note,

        "The front we present to particular people on particular kinds of
        occasions is our personality for them. Character, on the other hand,
        is our reputation in the minds of others, particularly with respect
        to what one might call our moral qualities, such as integrity,
        slipperiness, reliability, propensity to gossip or intrique. If our
        personality appears on the surface of our actions and in the
        expressive mode, our character is supposed to be a summary of the
        deepest and most stable features of our permanent inner selves. But
        it is gleaned from the experiences other people have of us, in social
        and other contacts, and is modified and transmuted in their gossip
        about us and their commentary upon our affairs. Attributions of
        character, then, are based upon much that appears as personality, but
        involve interpretation and moral assessment. Personality is shown,
        but character has to be read (p. 4)."

        That quote sums up as well as I ever could why I persist in my claim
        that trust between persons occurs faster in face to face encounters.

        Larry Irons
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.