Frances Bell’s Blog

“`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that’s all.’

” Alice Through the Looking Glass

I have come across an interesting set of posts on terminology recently.

Darren Kuropatwa said

“I hear a lot of effort poured into making a distinction that doesn’t exist. A network is a group. In particular a network is a type of group just as a community is a type of group. Online learning is about the formation of groups with a particular goal: education.”

But then Darren went on to claim values and characteristics for edublogging ‘community’ that marked it out from schoolyard cliques.

Stephen Downes does distinguish between groups and networks in a moving post that reveals some of the perils of groups, as well as their natural attraction to we social animals.

He says, “In my books, that line is the line between reason and emotion. To put it most simply, groups are based on passion while networks are based on reason.”

I find this separation between reason and emotion to be problematic - and wonder if that is a masculine model of communication.  Whilst we do wish to engage in rational discourse, we are human beings with feelings.  Even free speech comes with responsibilities.

Stephen goes on to recommend that the network be the preferred model for education, since he says that education should not be about socialisation.

“It seems clear to me that in endeavours where we, as a society, would prefer reason to prevail over emotions, we should prefer to organize ourselves as networks rather than as groups. It seems additionally to be clear to me that education is probably one of the most critical areas where this needs to be the case, as it will be necessary for citizens of the future to be able to respond to an increasing set of global crises from a ground of reason, rather than emotional attachment to a group.”

I am not sure that this separation of models is so clear cut - perhaps both models can be used differently at different times (contrast kindergarten with PhD Doctoral School) and in different types of education and learning.? But then, I do think that socialisation (including learning tolerance and respect for diversity) is part of education.

To get back to Humpty Dumpty, I came across (thanks to Nancy White) an interesting definition of social networking from Danah Boyd.

“A “social network site” is a category of websites with profiles, semi-persistent public commentary on the profile, and a traversable publicly articulated social network displayed in relation to the profile.” more

Danah got some lively comments on her definition

The three words groups, networks and community are particularly difficult because even before the Internet, they meant so many different things to different people.? That community has many different meanings may be part of its attraction, when used in advertising hype as a ‘warm glow’ word, implying good relations (Kogan 2000).

I think that we do need to agree definitions within certain contexts, or failing that be aware that we use terms differently.

If the issue of meaning in cross-cultural communication interest you please join our discussion at CABWEB HELP.? Be warned though - you do have to agree to the site policy and even get an account to post

Kogan, M. (2000). Higher Education Communities and Academic Identity. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(3), 207-216.