In The Social Life of Information, for one chapter the authors discuss how the concept of a university has been around for longer than any other institution, yet some are predicting its doom at the hands of the digital revolution. The authors conclude that universities can weather the storm, if they make some changes and I agree.

To get my masters degree, I work as a Resident Director. My job duties of this live-in position include managing a staff and a building full of college students, while looking after their well being. I interact with college students constantly and have grown to see the value of our college years.

In his act, comedian and podcaster Jimmy Fallon talks about how college is the smaller version of adulthood.  College students aren't ready for a stove, so they get a hotplate and They can't remember a full phone number so they get a 4-digit extension.

My experience hasn't been far from that. College is the first time students are thrust into the world to learn and interact with people on their own. College students first get a small room, then a small apartment, the whole time right alongside thousands of others in the most social environment in most people's lives. Life lessons and hardships happen daily.

These kind of lessons could never happen over a computer, in fact I would venture to say the lessons with the greatest value (ie. how to compromise with a roommate, balance a schedule, cook a meal) happen out of the classroom.

There is value in distance learning and it will continue to grow, but only if it starts to leverage all the social technologies that are being developed. For instance, this class I am in now is using twitter to communicate instead of Blackboard or email. I have never felt this engaged outside of the classroom with a class.

Another issue was raised by a friend of mine who is currently working running the tech-side of distance learning for a college. He works the software, flips the slides, and streams the professor for students all over the country to watch. I sent him a message on twitter and did a "twinterview". Asking him for a 140 character response on distance learning he said:

"its awesome that you can take a class from 300mi away, but distance learning software is frustratingly poorly designed (ie wimba)" and, "Further: they come up w their own protocols for chat, desktop sharing, file transfer, etc rather than established standards. And in java! Ew"

Distance learning is still in its fetal stages. One day it may be apart of everyone's lives. I just hope that they have a online stream on "How-To Clean Your Shared Bathroom More Than Once a Year".

     Our class was charged with reading The Social Life of Information, a commentary on how we may not be looking at the whole information picture.  John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid argue that we cannot look at information as if it is some discrete thing, separate from the social context in which it is used.  This argument is extended to technology as well.  The authors state that their book "emphasizes how easily, nonethelesss, these social contributions are overshadowed by the dazzling claims about new technology and the new economy, and seeks to draw attention back toward them (Preface X)."  Information does not exist in a vacuum.  Nor does the technology that has helped promulgate and make this information accessible.  Instead these entities belong to a network, a community, an ecology of sorts in which all parts-- context, people, information and technology co-mingle.  We cannot examine one part of the ecology without looking at where it came from and what influence it may have on other items. 

     The authors argue that we cannot oversimplify this complex relationship between information and its social context.  They argue: "as people try to plot the effects of technology, it's important to understand that information technologies represent powerful forces at work in society.  These forces are also remarkably complex."  While this bit of information wasn't necessarily new to me, I was expecting this book to more technically focused. After finishing the book, I understand why the authors chose the "people" aspect of information as the over-arching theme.  The authors feel that the people part of the information ecology is being ignored, or at least minimized, and this does a disservice to anyone trying to understand information science generally and information architecture particularly. 

  I was most interested in how the Brown and Suguid talked about collaborative learning in a corporate context.  It reminded me of Communities of Practice, and for good reason: the authors were drawing on Etienne Wenger's work for inspiration.  Brown and Suguid report: "the reps also developed a collective pool of knowledge and insight on which they drew... All contributed from personal stock, and there was a great deal of overlap, but each had his or her strengths, which the others recognized and relied on (104)." Even my workplace, a casual dining restaurant, which hardly demands a technical skillset, resembles this model presented by the authors.  Some of us, for example, know more about alcohol than others.  One of my friends seems to know everything about every menu item.  When someone has a specific question about whether a particular item has something he or she may be allergic to, I will call on my friend before I would some of the managers because I trust and recognize the validity of his knowledge.  Some of us know more about the rules and regulations of the restaurant than others, and others know the ins and outs of the computer the best.  When we have a question, we are largely self-regulating.  This is information which new workers may or may not be tested on, but is information that we have nonetheless come across through the years.  I wrote a blog on embodied knowledge in the workplace this week that fleshes out this concept further. 

   This sort of communal sharing of knowledge is not endemic to simply low-level work like my serving job or claims processors as mentioned in Wenger's book, it is also employed to great affect in high-level technical jobs (126).  Here's a relevant example from Brown and Suguid: "In the last years of graduate school or in internships, scientists, humanists, doctors, architects, or lawyers, after years of schoolroom training, learn their craft in the company of professional mentors (127)."  Some of us think (myself included) that school should prepare me to work on my own.  And for some jobs, this is fine.  But the for the majority of jobs-- education, retail, administration, or some of the others mentioned by the authors, this is not the case-- we often need to work together in the workplace.  So, hording knowledge the way a squirrel hords nuts is not so useful. 

    The authors continue with an interesting take on local knowledge-- information indigenous to a particular discourse community.  They say that "such local knowledge, however, can also reinforce the divisions that help create it.  As any one group develops in the direction of its unique practice, insights, and knowledge, it may develop away from the other groups with which it must work (154)."  I always looked at local knowledge as a positive and necessary thing.  But the authors suggest that training that is too specialized may become problematic for collaborative work which is becoming increasingly important in more varied contexts thanks to new technology. 

 The book also helped me re-think some of my opinions on education in light of new technologies drastically altering the educational landscape.  However, these changes must be monitored carefully.  The authors point to how teaching has become a sort of "delivery service" and schools are becoming a sort of "a loading-site".  However, this sort of thinking is fallacious, because, as mentioned before, it does not take into account the "people" aspect of education.  We are not machines.  Neither are our teachers.  We belong to a complex network of entities whose influence on other parts of the ecologies can only be roughly approximated.  We cannot always take into account how much race, gender, age, religion, nationality, or prior educational experience will have on a given person's education.  What is good for one is not always good for another.  Perhaps we can look now to leverage this technology and create a more customizable educational experience for everyone involved. 

Twitter me with questions. 
Joe

In The Social Life of Information, John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid conduct a discussion on how the transference and development of information is fueled by social interaction.  Based on this, the authors argue that attempts to replace existing social networks with technology compromises the processes we rely on to thrive, both as individuals and within the communities in which we participate.

 

Brown and Duguid make the point, “In attempting to replace outmoded ways of doing things, new technologies also displace work tasks that were once successfully shared across a group.  These are now concentrated on an individual” (79).  The authors use the example of Desktop publishing, but as an instructional systems designer who is consistently learning new tools to perform my job, I’m inclined to focus on what is gained in using these technologies rather than the breakdown of former distribution, as the evolution calls us to reevaluate what we consider our “embodied knowledge.”

 

For example, capturing a simulation through distribution of roles may require an Instructional Designer to layout the content (i.e. through verbiage/screenshots in MS Word or PowerPoint), a Developer/Graphic Artist to bring the storyboard to life, and a Narrator to provide the audio.  But through the use of recent software, such as Captivate or OnDemand, an instructional designer can capture their own simulation, use editing features for visual effect to enhance learning, and record their own audio.  This is not to say the development is completed in isolation, as heavy reliance on SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) and collaboration with other designers is integral to completing the materials. 

 

Making such use of these technologies not only empowers the instructional designer, but requires him/her to apply the different features in such a way that will culminate the most effective delivery.  I understand my ability to do this as an embodied knowledge that has evolved from my earlier work in instructional design.  This is not to dismiss the complexities of how the software works/is created, but I recognize this as a separate specialty that fuels my own ability to move forward and progress.

 

As one who works virtually, I was particularly interested in the chapters discussing the home office.  I do recognize the validity to some points, such as the disruption of space that accompanies hot desking.  (When I was moved onto a corporate project last May where the resources would be scattered, I was given the choice to work from home five days a week and, when needed, plug into a random cubicle, or come into the office one day a week and maintain my workspace.  For reasons similar to what Brown and Duguid discuss, I chose to keep my desk.) 

 

However, and this may be a reflection of the text’s most recent publication being seven years ago, I don’t think working outside of an office is as socially isolating nor are the breakdowns in technology as baleful as Brown and Duguid suggest.  Tools such as Microsoft Communicator enable constant interaction with coworkers on multiple levels—whether via IM (with icons to support casual conversations) or Live Meeting to perform screen shares and allow control.  For example, when I first joined my current project, my teammate (who works from home in California) noticed I was using outdated macros in a doc.  He initiated an IM discussion, took control of my computer as I watched, and found that I had attached an outdated template.  Similar approaches can be taken with my company’s Help Desk during times of technological malfunction.

 

In terms of file sharing, we utilize a secure SharePoint site with common documents.  So, for example, my teammate and I maintain a document tracking action issues/defects identified within a transaction.  This technology enables us to share information that may otherwise have been lost to the other had we kept it to ourselves in hardcopy/in a binder within our personal workspace.

 

I recognize that technology cannot replace face to face interaction.  (If such were the case, I wouldn’t be traveling twice a month to meet with my team.)  But, as a user, I think the advancements are perpetuating interaction and, when used correctly, do not compromise our roles, but call us to reassess them.      

The Social Life of Information written by John Seely Brown of Xerox and Paul Duguid of the  University of California Berkeley discuses various forms of information and how they affect our lives.  The book begins by describing human’s relationship with information as a driver with tunnel vision which forces the person to look straight ahead at the target and not acknowledge anything else on the sides.  They say that while this vision maybe the fastest way of reaching their goal it may also be terrifying for the passengers who see the dangers that they are passing.  However, they recommend that since we live in a “heavily designed world we need to understand both the strengths and the limitations of the designs offered to us.” (Brown and Duguid 4)  Along these lines they propose that our current method of handling the flaws of technology by adding more technology is faulty, which will lead to what they have call 6- D vision; demassification, decentralization, denationalization, despacialization, disintermediation, disaggregation.  They continue to talk about transaction costs in the market place and the trend of mergers among giant companies such as Amoco, AT&T, Bankers, Trust, BMW, British Petroleum, Chrysler, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, Exxon, Ford, IBM, Lotus,  MCI, Mercedes, Mobil, Time Warner, Travelers, Worldcom, etc. This massification has also occurred in higher education with online universities such as Britain’s Open University, China’s TV University System, Phoenix University, and many other similar universities.  At the time that this book was written these colleges seemed to be mostly individual classes that were taken away from the building for college credit.  You could then transfer those credits to at ‘brick and mortar” college to get your degree.  However now actual degrees are easily available from these colleges and even advanced degrees.  Many colleges offer low residency programs for students so that they can attract more people with fewer costs to them. 

However as the book points out just because something appears to be the wave of the future (I am conscious of this phrase thanks to Metaphors We Live By) that does not mean that it will be a success.  There is still a large demand for traditional universities even though their electronic counter parts may be more cost effective and convenient.  Just like there are smaller companies who refuse to be bought up by the giants.  Or the idea of paperless offices.  While the idea may be innovative, paper for example as the authors point out is a useful tool that provides background information, individual differences, and contextual clues. This brings us back to the opening of the book and the idea of noticing what is on our peripheries. 

The authors also talk about the changes that have occurred on the internet such as the advent of autonomous agents.  These agents “help people deal with the cascade of information that many find so threatening and they promise to handle many intricate human tasks…[and] sweep away many conventional organizations and institutions previously involved in those tasks…[and] offer an interesting way to evaluate some of the endisms threatened by information technology.” (Brown and Duguid 36)  The agents are information broker, product brokering, merchant brokering, and negotiation

            While these agents can be extremely helpful when working online the authors are against working at home.  They believe that our relationship with our space is very important and well as the notion of being able to go to, a perhaps more experienced, co-worker with a problem.  Having this type of help from people who have probably faced similar problems is much more effective than trying to find the answer on your own or using a manual or computer system which has trouble adapting to different situations.  In an office type environment people can share their ideas and methods.  The book continues with further examples of this as well as information taken from the author’s research and careers.  Over all I found the book very interesting and influencing in the way I view my surrounding and relationship with information. 

 

    In both Information Ecologies by Bonnie Nardi and Vicki O’Day and The Social Life of Information by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, the authors repeatedly stress that humans are in control of technology. We are the masters of our own information ecologies and the technologies within them. It seems that when it comes to Twitter, David Pogue from the New York Times agrees. In his article “Twitter? It’s What You Make It, Pogue suggests that the nature of Twitter is reliant on the members of the Twitter sphere ecology.

    While “there are no rules” on Twitter, as Pogue asserts, there is an established uniformity that the community has adopted for itself. These unofficial rules make tweeting on Twitter (try saying that five times fast!) more coherent and understandable. Technology did not develop these rules and guidelines, but rather people created them in an attempt to better use the Twitter technology.

    Brown and Duguid state, “For all information’s independence and extent, it is people, in their communities, organizations, and institutions, who ultimately decide what it all means and why it matters.” Twitter is an active information ecology, and it is controlled not by the designers and developers or by the technology itself, but by the millions of tweeters who actively communicate and shape the Twitter ecology. The tweeters are as Nardi and O’Day would say, the keystone species of the Twitter information ecology. Without discourse within the Twitter ecology from the tweeters, Twitter would not survive.