Ford and Community
Ford’s post illustrates what makes the web a medium unto itself–one that can be built to facilitate and encourage worldwide access in “communities of practice”. Sites like Metafilter and Reddit are examples of success because they were able to cultivate good content from a genuine community of practice. Somewhat off-puttingly, Ford assigns blanket judgement and identifies the mechanism as self-serving superiority to what Wenger refers to as “social practice”, which echoes superiority in and of itself. Nonetheless, online learning can leverage the web’s ability to create communities of practice in higher education because it “can enable learning to happen in a variety of contexts, locations, and times; it allows for a transformation of curriculum and learning.” (Christensen et al., 2011, p. 4).
It is interesting that one of Ford’s questions possibly answered by the web doesn’t have books as an answer. The first question regarding where to go for something with elves or bombs, my first answer was books only to find that movies were the right answer. We hear you saying, “yeah but this is a question about the web, not about entertainment.” Yes. But these are questions about the web, not about the Internet (which are different, the Internet is the medium in which the Web is experienced). The web can provide us ebooks and places to order physical copies. We hear you asking why are we talking about this? Ford uses the term he coined “Gutenbourgeois,” their own community of practice, as a way of categorizing the people he considers Internet Luddites but in itself a reference to a disruptive technology in its own right, the Gutenberg Press. Ford vilifies the print media as seeing themselves as the keeper of culture’s keys and are unresponsive to the power of the Internet and the Web but Ford forgets that it is books where society and culture get a great deal of its meaning and still is a valuable source of meaning making.
At the conclusion of his article, Ford calls for a revolution for interacting with the content one shares. Grounded in the context of the publishing industry, he calls for readers to become members. The customer service experience of the web that Ford calls for is representative of how Wenger depicts a community. The first element of mutual engagement is seen when he calls for members to consult amongst themselves which allows members to negotiate meaning amongst themselves. Creating boundaries within the community of acceptable and unacceptable behavior can be seen as a joint enterprise with members within the community mutual accountability or punishment for transgressors. As the readership community continues jointly pursuing an enterprise, the shared repertoire, the third element of community, can be developed. Within the communities of writers and readers, identities of members can emerge, ways of doing things can be created and adopted, and expression of membership can be created.
By accepting the assumption that learning, specifically at the post-secondary level, is an individual process, the communities of practice that are formed and participated throughout the learning process are often overlooked. These communities of practice are of value because “we all have our own theories and ways of understanding the world, and our communities of practice are places where we develop, negotiate, and share them” (Wenger, 1998, p. 48). As members join a community and participate to varying degrees, they are able, within that community, to grapple with the explicit and implicit in experience. In his article on the changing landscape of higher education, Clay Shirky talks about the stories we tell ourselves about higher education; those stories could be implicit or explicit. Regardless, a community of practice could serve as a context to confront underlying assumptions, examine the language surrounding higher education and develop a shared world view of the purpose of higher education.
Controlling the Experience
The “niche app experience” is attractive because it’s not always about the WWIC mindset. Many would gladly pay for an app that gives them the power to pull in any form of media from any source, curate social networks, and highly customize the experience. What can make some apps/websites great is how they tap into the desire for a social component. Popular fitness apps tend to include a variety of ways to engage with the community and identity with achievements, goals, original content, sharing, and community. When the content is no longer relevant to your needs (e.g. you’ve outgrown or are bored with the same fitness videos), you can still go to the community to participate in the supportive social interaction and collective knowledge building. Apps that require you to share, rate, or comment in order to use it are trying too hard in mandating interaction and stand to lose users/customers. The same goes for those that prevent any sort of sharing or discussion, like pay-walled news sources. Unsolicited content and opinions outside of your specified circles, while being touted as a “community-driven” or “interest-based”, seems disingenuous and transparent in it being a device to profit off of their audience. The more apps/websites limit the experience of the user and their ability to be social, the more skeptical I am about it lasting.
Real Talk
Wenger really resonates because we can see it all around us. Adam is usually skeptical of theories like this that try to apply to everyone and everything as there are almost always holes or exceptions but Communities of Practice has so far demonstrated how it applies to everything in some capacity. The strength comes from Wenger not trying to be too dogmatic in describing conditions that would apply. Wenger often says he’s not arguing for an idealized case but that the theory or subtopic applies in any type of situation.
Initially, Adam struggled with the idea that meaning making “is at once both historical and dynamic, contextual and unique” (p.54) because it seems paradoxical but as he thought about it more and the idea of a person’s first kiss fits Wenger’s definition. Adam explains using himself as an example:
- I never kissed anyone before so I have no personal history to pull from but I have seen kissing in TV and movies so I have a general sense of what to expect. I’ve also seen people in public kiss which adds new and different ideas set of expectations. In this case, while not personal, I do have a historical context taken from media society.
- The kiss happens and in many ways fits into the historical context I had coming into it. Was I nervous like I saw in movies and TV? Yes. Was it special? Yes. Did it mean true love? No. But that’s okay. The kiss mostly fit that historical context. Was I a great kisser the very first time? Not by a long shot. But I wasn’t supposed to be because it was my first time. When I retell the story, I use that “my first time” context to describe why the kiss happened the way it did.
- The kiss was definitely unique. I can remember room we were in, I can remember how we were sitting, I can remember her perfume, and I can remember a host of other small details that make this moment unique. I would venture a guess that most of us can remember details like these from a first kiss
- Every kiss since that first one is connected through history (now personal), the context of experience, the context of who the other person is, dynamics of the emotional impact of each kiss (a routine kiss goodbye verses a kiss when reuniting after a long absence), and the uniqueness of each individual kiss. All of these components to the meaning of a kiss can change or solidify what it means to a person.
Brandon says
One book I keep coming back to is Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds (Holland et al, 1998). One of the central ideas there speaks to this paradox of the historical and dynamic. The nutshell version is that people’s behavior does follow norms, to an extent, but every situation calls for interpretation so that every moment people are improvising what they hold to be proper behavior. Thus, historical and dynamic. A community of practice can be approached the same way, with norms and expectations, but also the ability to interpret and improvise, and by doing so even reshape the meanings that had been made.
Zach Lonsinger says
Wow, that first kiss example escalated quickly – wasn’t sure where it was going but it really clicked for me after I kept reading.
I really resonated with the “Controlling the Experience” section on “niche app experience”. I couldn’t agree more with this statement: “The more apps/websites limit the experience of the user and their ability to be social, the more skeptical I am about it lasting.” And you can see this happening and working itself out across all types of apps. Apps like Clash of Clans which takes gaming and adds a social component to it, allowing you to strategize with a “clan”. This concept isn’t new and it’s no surprise that this is one of the most popular games in Apple’s App Store. Or even niche social networking apps like Untapped. Untapped has been so successful that it has gone beyond the app experience and created an <a href="https://untappd.com/"entire COP online, too. Something as simple as drinking a beer has been made into a successful app with a large COP that many “casual drinkers” now identify with. You couldn’t have been more right in that apps or websites that limit their users’ social experience simply will not last.
Isaac Jason Bretz says
Ford wrote:
“Define what the boundaries are in your community and punish transgressors without fear of losing a sale.”
Being explicit with your definitions of boundaries, while acknowledging that these definitions will need to adapt to new situations, is of vital importance to maintaining trust and sense of identity among participants. Arbitrary punishment/attention is the surest way of ensuring low student evaluations.
Questions: In the current environment of academic censorship on university campuses, just how much can be afforded to dissent in the online or offline classroom? Does allowing insensitive and even hateful language to be disseminated promote a community of practice?
Katie Bateman says
Your statement, “What can make some apps/websites great is how they tap into the desire for a social component” I think can tie into support for online education as viable learning opportunities- essentially “thought coins.” There are apps for educational opportunities too; I brushed on my French with one of them last summer. Is this a way to gamify the educational experience? I’d argue yes, but it has to be done properly. I can name a multitude of poorly done test prep programs for K-12 that claim to do this task, but fall short of learning, instead focus on assessing.
Leah Bug says
I like how you brought up Ford’s thoughts about books. I saw this as the foundation of his argument. Book authors and sellers were concerned about the web and the decline of their livelihood. They tried to use the “disruptive technology” by giving away stories so people would by the book, which they didn’t. So the idea that they, the people in the industry was looking at things all wrong because the web is a customer service medium. People go there to get something…so they way to get them to stay, and in the end, to buy your product (books) is that they needed to turn their web site into a community. “You don’t want visitors or subscribers. Turn your readers into members”. Turn them into a community. I wonder if that is working for them?
pul121 says
The argument ties community of practices well with Ford’s article. It emphasizes that a community of practice is the ongoing process involving people to engage in negotiation of meaning. Wenger states that the concept of negotiation often means that reaching an agreement between people (p.53). So, I am confused about the first kiss example you provided as meaning making. Is it just an example to define personal meaning making or are you referring to meaning making in the community of practice? I think the negotiating part is missing in your example.
Zach Lonsinger says
Wow, that first kiss example escalated quickly – wasn’t sure where it was going but it really clicked for me after I kept reading.
I really resonated with the “Controlling the Experience” section on “niche app experience”. I couldn’t agree more with this statement: “The more apps/websites limit the experience of the user and their ability to be social, the more skeptical I am about it lasting.” And you can see this happening and working itself out across all types of apps. Apps like Clash of Clans which takes gaming and adds a social component to it, allowing you to strategize with a “clan”. This concept isn’t new and it’s no surprise that this is one of the most popular games in Apple’s App Store. Or even niche social networking apps like Untapped. Untapped has been so successful that it has gone beyond the app experience and created an entire COP online, too. Something as simple as drinking a beer has been made into a successful app with a large COP that many “casual drinkers” now identify with. You couldn’t have been more right in that apps or websites that limit their users’ social experience simply will not last.
Dean says
“Was I a great kisser the very first time? Not by a long shot. But I wasn’t supposed to be because it was my first time. ”
When I read this, I wondered how you knew that you weren’t a great kisser this very first time? Did she tell you? If so, was it her first time too? What was the quality of your kiss being compared to here? Or maybe this was just your assumption of yourself. But if so, I wonder, can one truly judge the quality of his or her own kiss?
I don’t know…just something that I kept thinking about when I read your post. Thanks for sharing!
Koun says
I think you well applied Wenger’s framework to Ford’s post. What I took on from the Ford’s post was that each medium has its own strength and weakness, and what matters is how we find the adequate medium and how to use for our own concern. I was looking at the example sites that Ford has provided, and the Ford’s blog if the online environments and the people engage in the sties promotes the membership of the community. In terms of that, I could see they somehow produced joint enterprise, but hard to say that membership was created and the identities of members emerge or change like you mentioned. I think anonymity inhibits the open, but respectful relationship among the members..
Michael Sean Banales says
Interesting thoughts. The only criticism I would give is that, at least in my interpretation, it didn’t seem that Ford was attempting to do something quite as dramatic as “vilify” so much as he’s presenting a genuine critique on their current situations and of the way in which they are still attempting to apply the old models of business that traditionally worked during a time where a disruptive innovation such as the internet has come to power. That aside, thank you so much for the example of the kiss. It was both entertaining and did a wonderful job of nailing the concept down for me.