'Collaborate or Perish': Cultivating Information in the Modern World

(An example of a community of practice)

In the global space of communities of information, it is often a case of nature versus nurture. By this it can be understood that creating communities of practice or inquiry can be either helped by the rapid development of economies of knowledge; i.e. a case of natural development in society. Alternatively it can be restricted by a sense of nurturing of the old ways to harbor information within a particular community, rather than sharing this data for the greater good of society. This blogpost will discuss these conflicts in relation to the Communities of Practice class of the MA in Digital Humanities, here in UCC, which will take place on Monday the 5th of November 2012. This class will allow us to experience active discussions of Etienne Wenger's Introduction to Communities of Practice and the Introduction and first chapter of Wikinomics, using digital conferencing methods.

It is now time to create the foundations for walking the walk within Digital Humanities:

(Wenger discusses his work with Brantlee Underhill, PMI Director of Pratitioner Markets)

Looking at Wenger's work it is clear that the concept of communities of practice is well established, yet underrated. Like many structures of economy, learning and society, a lack of communication thus far outside of the walls of these sectors has allowed for this idea to escape our notice. With the rapid expansion of all things technology based, we can now experience the true value of communities of practice. Examining Wenger's definition, he states that "communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly" (Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction). This statement invites the question of whether there are elements of failure within this scheme? Can a community of practice deteriorate through loss of this concern or passion, and should there be regulations in place in order to deal with these losses?

There is also the issue of those who are forgotten when the community of practice evolves into its largest, most openly creative form. These are the hoarders. Those who hide in their offices, sitting on valuable information.

(Image obtained from www.123rf.com)

They are also those who are afraid of change.

These people also fall into the nurture category, when looking at the system of communities of practice. Is there a way of including these people so that they do not get left behind, or are they eternally stuck in this mindset? I think that the adaptability of the human race is underestimated in this sense. Arguably, Wegner and the Wikinomics writers have overlooked certain elements of human psychology, in that the crowd or tribe mentality is strongest, and that sooner or later the majority of non-believers will convert, once they perceive the great success of this method of global practice. Positivity is essential in the conversion of private practices of closed community to public practices of open community.

The process of growth within communities of practice reminds me of a kind of information farming. Ideas are grown through nourishment, when seeds are planted by engagement with the foundations, which in this case is the wider community of the world. It has been argued that people are the "tangible assests" of modern day organisations, whether they are internal or external to that organisation (Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage, 3). This is becoming more and more evident in our own University structure. The engagement of students within the knowledge economy of their degree makes them a valuable external asset to the internal teaching practices of their lecturers. These contributions also come from external sources outside of the University community, such as interaction with greater society. Without the external influences of the students, the Universities assets are diminished. The University is no longer a closed network of learning. We are engaging in global connectivity with other colleges to improve our own systems.

A statement which struck me as very controversial came in the form of the closing words from the first chapter of Wikinomics. "Collaborate or perish", which is also the title of this post, seemed slightly dramatic in essence and certainly retained its shock value. I think that again it overlooks societies ability to adapt as a whole, and does not acknowledge the fact  that people progress at different rates. It is evident that this threat is meant to challenge the hierarchy of information. However, one needs to ask the question as to whether threats will get a progressing system anywhere?

The book itself provides a template which my own class could use for creating a work of collaboration.The example of using the development of a subtitle as an open web discussion highlighted the multi-dimensional applications of 'wikinomics' in the field of digital humanities. "Within twenty-four hours we had dozens of great subtitle suggestions" (Wikinomics, 4). It defies the structure of a normal book, in that it was created by many, who were given the open opportunity to participate in constructing the framework for headings associated with the chapters through the online forum, rather than excluding useful knowledge through writing and publishing agreements. I think that they put it best in this chapter with the line that they will "harness some of the best minds in the Industry" using these methods of community (Wikinomics,8). There is also a significant element of acknowledgement and gratification in this practice. New, skillful members of society are uncovered, who would otherwise have gone overlooked. Open source puts all of these ideas highlighted by Tapscott and Williams into practice.

When I imagine this in terms of what we are doing in this course, I envision class projects in which we collaborate in a virtual space to create a body of work outside of the classroom, such as a shared blog. The various examples of public 'peering' throughout this work provide some very applicable models for our own MA to think about when we begin to face the challenges that lie ahead in Digital Humanities. These examples, such as the Gold Mining story, face both the problems and benefits which any community of practice will encounter when engaging in collaboration. Forbes provides a comprehensive list of tips for virtual collaboration, which I think will prove useful in the context of this course. These are as follows:

1. Increase cross cultural awareness
2. Co-create team rules and norms
3. Build virtual trust
4. Mix communication mediums
5. Make the first meeting face to face

I thought that this list would be helpful in building our own online community of practice using this course as a backbone. In particular I felt that the elements of trust and regulation would keep the group working fluidly.

There was one discussion in this chapter in particular which drew my attention. The 'Promise and Peril' section underlined the dangers which the idea of communities of practice can attract. Alongside these communities who mean well with their intentions for collaborating are those involved in criminal collaboration. The inclusion of this section was worthwhile in exposing the negative types of collaboration which still exist in such a developing area. It synopsizes the negative and positive kinds of teamwork out there and that while communities of practice are revolutionary in theory, they are not without their problems.

 Another aspect of the perils which I would like to discuss is the "mass mediocrity" problem. Coming from a literary studies background, the suffocating of authentic voices due to over-saturation of digital voices is one of my greatest fears. I am glad that it has been recognised here. I link this back to literature  by arguing that the literary market-place may become flooded by mediocre 'writers', meanwhile true, talented voices of literature may be lost in the influx. This idea follows into the debate made by James E. Gall about the conflict in this book between profit and sharing. "The apparent contradiction created between the openness/sharing philosophy and the personal/corporate profit angle is the greatest weakness of this book" (Gall, 362). Literature is a prime example of this in that free, open source literature follows this model, but professional writers also need to make a profit. Therefore how do we merge the two, without stifling the professional literary marketplace? I agree that there are many contradictions involving these two areas in this book, however it would be wrong to overlook the economic factors, in order to promote this cause.

To conclude, I consider both of these works to warrant a dynamic debate amongst my peers in Mondays class. I found them both useful for contextualising the system of communities of practice in my own mind.
They also categorised the dark side of these communities, which are a valuable element to be aware of when engaging in them. Although both were a bit over zealous in their promotions of COP's or Wikinomics, they provided many valid points on why this is the way forward. However, if we are to practice what these works preach, we must do so with caution so as not to lose sight of true creativity. I think that we should also encourage the nurturers of old traditions to follow the progressing digital path. The only way that we can persuade them to do this is by demonstrating the effectiveness of creating our own society of knowledge building through global, digital means, leaving them no choice but to walk the walk alongside us.

Works Cited

Gall, James E. 'The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen; Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything by Donald Tapscott, Anthony D. William, Review', Educational Technology Research and Development. 53.3 (2008): 361-4, Jstor, 3 Oct. 2012. Web. 

Saint-Onge, Hubert, Debra Wallace. Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003. Print.

Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction. Web. June (2006). http://www.ewenger.com/theory/

William, Anthony D., Donald Tapscott. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Web, (2008). http://www.wikinomics.com/book/IntroAndOne.pdf

HTML?

Just a few sites which I have found useful in my quest to learn html:

• http://www.w3schools.com/ -This is quite an obvious one for anyone starting off in anything to do with computer science. They provide easy to follow online tutorials which let you practice every step as you work your way through the site, building up your html confidence as you progress.

• http://thenewboston.org/ - This rivals W3Schools as one of the best online tutorial based computer science sites. Any of my I.T. friends that I asked for recommendations directed me to this site over W3, so if that's anything to go by then it must be good.

• http://www.pagetutor.com/index.html - This site promises 'plain English' guidance in explaining the ins and outs of HTML.

• http://www.html.net/- Another good one for easy to follow, succinct explanations for the novice in the world of computer science.

I hope that this selection of html tutorial site offerings helps anyone who is having trouble with understanding html or further down the line, xml. I know that they have helped me a lot in the last few days, I'm not saying that I am now an expert, but I'm slowly but surely gaining confidence in my own ability to understand what is going on 'under the hood'!

 If all else fails, I recommend befriending someone who is studying Computer Science!

Dabbling in Digital Humanities

This blog post will discuss the challenges which face us when we attempt to both define Digital Humanities, and dabble in this emerging field.
The inspiration for this stems from the first class of my MA in Digital Arts and Humanities, in which we discussed The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0, among other works.

Although this Manifesto of sorts was quite spliced together and lacking a central focus, it was interesting to observe the many different voices which can create such a work. There is an obvious element of resistance and controversy evident in the labeling and defining of the field of Digital Humanities. Even in this Manifesto, the meaning of 'DH' becomes quite skewed due to the reluctance of many aspects of its construction to properly define its mission. As a novice within this area, I find it quite strange that there is such a compelling resistance to explaining the nature of what Digital Humanities stands for and wishes to achieve.

In terms of its layout, the Manifesto appears to be quite archaic in its use of images scattered incoherently throughout the text. However, it does provide a fusion between visionary and textual elements, which is an area that Digital Humanities is heavily associated with. In this sense the piece stays true to the merging of worlds using digital means, however they could have put more effort into sourcing better images. It struck me as a very reflective piece of literature. Every time I read it I was reminded of the various Modernist and Postmodernist Manifesto's which emerged in the twentieth century. For example Ezra Pound's Imagism Manifesto,  A Few Dont's by an Imagiste, which strikes me as just as vague and incoherent as this piece. Pound describes the image as "that which presents an intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time" (Manifesto, 356). His work assembles the same sort of definition without defining at the start of the Manifesto, which aids no one.

A piece within the Manifesto which I found 'perspective changing' was the arguments made about Wikipedia. The authors provides an interesting take on Wikipedia, which sees it advocated as "the most siginificant Web 2.0 creation to harness a mass audience in knowledge production and dissemination"(The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0, 6). This was quite a different take upon a database which throughout my time in University has been demonized. However, it highlighted the fact that Wikipedia is in fact an important community of reference, which is managed by everyone for everyone. Regardless of the fact that this site can oftentimes harbor factually inaccurate information, it is none the less a significant example of the power of contribution and co-ordination which Digital Humanities strives for.

Looking at some of the other pieces we discussed in class, I found Pedro Hernandez-Ramos's debates upon private and public spaces for blogging to be quite a beneficial analogy for the difficult task of extracting useful information from a mass of useless overtly personal blog spaces on the internet. "A complementary goal was to encourage students to see both blogs and discussion forums as valid and effective tools for professional development and lifelong learning" (Ramos, 3).  It is my opinion that the blog is lacking validation as an important arena for up to date research. Ramos's context makes clear that work that appears to be in a private spectrum, such as the blog, can be just as valuable for research purposes and other professional usage. This piece adds to the call for the validation of the blog as a legitimate tool for research, which can provide peer review and critique at a fast pace.

The article by Paula M. Krebs entitled Next Time, Fail Better was something that I could really relate to as a former Masters student in the English literature faculty. Krebs's article addresses the taboo within the Humanities of the negative connotations of failure. This is very much frowned upon amongst peers, whereas in faculties such as Computer Science and Science in general, failure is a normal part of the process of learning. I think I will try to adopt Krebs's approach this year to some degree throughout this MA in Digital Arts and Humanities. This piece also discussed the notion of "workshopping as a pedagogy" which I thought fit quite aptly into the concept of the digital sphere (Krebs). Take for instance the comments which are attached to this piece. This in itself is a workshop, in which the 'Fail better' piece is assessed and new items are contributed by both strangers, and I'm sure, peers of Krebs. The internet can be shown from this piece to be opening up into its very own tool for teaching and learning within every field.

I'll end this piece with a quote from Jerome McGann, which argues that we need "to reform the text through computer assistance to provide new insights" (A Companion to Digital Humanities, np). This is what I strive to do as I begin to dabble in digital humanities. I hope that my knowledge of the space of the text, which I have gathered through my studies of English and History, can be transformed into new progressive models through the use of digital tools.I am particularly interested in the transformation of the solid archive of the library into a digital archive, which can be accessed all over the world, without the issue of trawling through limited archival catalogues contained within the physical library to gain limited resources for research. Rather, research needs to expand, by making information available in a direct and speedy manner.

So this video is slightly cheesy and quite brief, however kitkatkale makes some useful arguments as a fellow dabbler in digital humanities.

Works Cited

Caws, Mary Ann. Manifesto: A Century of Isms. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001. Print. 

Schriebman, Susan, et al. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Print.