Partial readings up to November 12
Amblard, H., Bernoux, P., Herreros, & G., Livian, Y-F. (1996) Une sociologie de la traduction. Chap.3, (pp. 127-177). Les nouvelles approches sociologiques des organisations. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.
A closer look at actor network theory an its components (actants, translations, and chains of translations).
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Chap.1, (pp.1-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Borgatti, S.P. & Foster, P.C. (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research. A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.
Thorough overview of how the term network is understood and used in organizational research. Based on a 4 quadrant matrix, the structural dimension is paired with the connectionist dimension that looks at flow of information through ‘conduit’ or pipes (reminds me of Siemens theory.) The structural understanding is seen as a ‘girder’ that shapes (reminiscent of contingency approaches), while the connectionist understanding is responsible for diffusion and contagion. It also looks into levels of analysis, social cognition, group processes, KM, direction of causality, consequences of networks,
Bowskill, N. (2004) Informal learning projects as a vehicle for collaborative professional development in online communities. Proceedings of NLC 2004, Individual Research papers, Networked learning conference 2004, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved Oct.10, 2005, from:
I thought I would find an interesting informal learning approach, but instead this study looks at a community approach where a coach is paired with someone who has a project to develop. The learning in this e-communication structure (seen as a community) centers around a project. Mentors and mentoree convene around a project. It does not address contextual difficulties related to project, negotiation factors, power structures that inform choices, if the projects are viable, no word on the process of dialogue other than evidenced in produced docs. Confusion in terms used: project based 2 people teams are not communities, nor is the overseeing of a project necessarily informal.
Cross, J. (2004) Emergent learning. Retrieved Sept.23, 2005, from:
Guribye, F, Wasson, B. (2002) The ethnography of distributed collaborative learning. Paper presented at the Nordic Interactive Research School – Discourse and Interaction in CSCL, InterMedia, Oslo, May 2001. Retrieved May 17, 2005 from: http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/148.html
More about doing ethnography than about collaborative learning per se.
Engeström, Y. (2004) Collaborative intentionality capital: object-oriented interagency in multiorganizational fields.Retrieved November 10, 2005, from:
In Engeström’s newer thinking object centered sociality is becoming more present. Still moving from an activity centered focus, this paper explores concepts of distributed agency in speaking of the coming together of able active actors. From social capital theories, object oriented interagency He also explores the 3 main forms of modern work organizations: markets, hierarchies and networks.
Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156.
See entry on blog.
Engeström, J. (2005) Why some social network services work and others don’t. Or the case for object-centered sociality. Retrieved June 12, 2005 from:
Fernback, J. (1999) There is a there there: Notes towards a definition of cybercommunity. (pp.203-220). In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: critical issues and methods for examining the net. UK: Sage.
Communities as place, as symbol, as virtual and real versus virtual. A number of problems of definitions are presented.
Jones C. & Esnault L. (2004) The Metaphor of Networks in Learning: Communities, Collaboration and Practice. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 13, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved March 18, 2005 from:
Good thorough paper
Good thorough paper
Jones, C. (2004). Theory and the practices of learning technology. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 1, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from:
heory and the practices of learning technology. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 1, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from: heory and the practices of learning technology. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 1, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from:Speaks of the eclectic nature of the profession within the practice/theory divide. Talks about trends in employment of learning technologists and the problem of deskilling when reorganizing employment categories.
Law, J. (2000) Networks, Relations, Cyborgs: on the Social Study of Technology. Published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, UK. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from:
Lemke, J.L. (n.d.) Metadata Literacy: transforming meanings and media. Retrieved Oct 19,2005 from:
First part of the article most interesting. Looks at the need to open up our ‘literacies’ to move beyond notions of text to multi-media and tech literacies. Lemke proposes a typo (text) and topological (picture) sense making. He launches into an ideological reconstruction of the world in the second part, based on a new information literacy according to an interactive learning paradigm.
Mejias, U. A. (draft 2005) Social agency and the intersection of communities and networks. Retrieved Oct.16, 2005 from:
proposes a social agency view of code which is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the paper. He splits community view where social agency is retained by humans, versus social software environments where code reduces or determines how we relate, which he attributes to networks. He does not seem to be aware of K Knorr Cetina’s work.
Reynolds, M., Sclater, M. & Tickner, S. (2004) A critique of participative discourses adopted in networked learning. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 10, Networked learning conference 2004 in Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from :
Siemens, G. (September 2005) Designing ecosystems versus designing learning. Retrieved Oct. 23, 2005 from: http://connectivism.ca/blog/32
Siemens, G. (October 2003) Learning ecology, communities and networks. Retrieved Oct.23, 2005 from:
Stahl, G. (2004) Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. Chap.3, (pp.53-86). In J.W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner, R.L. Martens (Eds). What we know about CSCL: and implementing it in higher education. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Stahl, G. (in press) Contributions to a theoretical framework. Chap. 11. In Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge MA:MIT Press.
Stephenson, K. (n.d.) What knowledge tears apart, networks make whole. Internal Communication Focus no. 36. Retrieved Oct. 21, 2005 from: http://www.netform.com/html/icf.pdf
Managerial biased paper full of socio flavoured misconceptions: 1) Trust equated with culture 2) Network seen as intra org configuration, 3) “a network is a seamless and invisible web of entrusted connections” 4) Objective for tacit knowledge is to make it explicit for storage and retrieval 5) F2F much interaction 6) People skewed networks (no artefacts )
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. & Hakkarainen, K. (200?) Epistemological Foundations for CSCL : a comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. Centre for research on networked learning and knowledge communities.
Reviews Nonaka’s model of knowledge creating org; Engestrom expansive learning model and Carl Bereiter’s knowledge building framework. Avoids individualism and Cartesian dualism by bringing in artefacts and other epistemological tools. Knowledge building part of a dynamic process. Emphasizes elements of mediation in knowledge creation. Limited by the theories chosen where sociology’s contribution is not evident.
Wittel, A. (2001) Toward a network sociality. Theory, Culture & Society 18(6), 51-76.
Excellent paper that builds on Karen Knorr Cetina’s object centered sociality and post-social theory. She distinguishes between narrative sociality that is closer to communities, from informational sociality that is more shallow punctual and negotiated on a project based basis. She speaks of networking an activity that permeates work and play and renders many relationships instrumental at developing the ‘getting ahead’ network of contacts needed. There are many other interesting nuggets of knowledge interesting to anyone curious about understanding how the permeation of technology in our lives is not only acting as a mediator to social contact but configuring new ways of relating that are techno enabled. I found her understanding of what happens in online communities somewhat limited, while her conclusions leave a feeling of instrumentality to all social contacts when the work/play boundary disappears.