One interesting idea that I’ve found in Shirky’s (2008) “Here comes everybody” is that the Internet emphasizes the distinction between perfection and perfectability. As Shirky puts it, “ the goal of getting better at something is different from the goal of being good at it; there is a pleasure in improving your abilities even if that doesn’t translate into absolute perfection” (p.99). As perfection is, I think, unreachable or at least circumstantial, perfectability is a more desirable goal. In Shirky’s view, perfectability translates into simple questions such as “How did you do that?” which is asked/answered in the online communities. A genuine question like that is able to become the starter of conversations between new-comers and more experienced people in any given domain. Either it’s about getting to the next level in an interactive game or finding the best deal when buying a product, online conversation reveals a desire to become better at; it reveals perfectability. I think that perfectability is the engine of learning. To want to be better at something is the prerequisite of learning, isn’t it?
However, the idea of perfectability does not explain by itself the whole process. The intention of the less experienced member of the community is to become better. What about the more experienced one? Is s/he going to become better? Is perfectability a viable condition for her/him? What is providing an answer to the question going to do for her/him? I think her/his trade-off is as valuable as that of the less experienced person. Being challenged to provide an answer produces at least two results: 1) makes her/his expertise visible and acknowledged which is rewarding in itself, and 2) offers the chance of knowledge “refreshing” by discuss it with others and put it on the table to be dissected. In this “dissection” there is opportunity for close analysis, reexamination or validation of knowledge, thus perfectability.
Interestingly, this informal learning that develops spontaneous in online communities has been theorized by Lave and Wenger back in 1991 under the concept of situated learning in communities of practice. Learning is seen as legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice in which the learner progressively moves from the periphery towards the center. Within this centripetal motion, the learner accumulates knowledge evolving from a newcomer to an old-timer, from apprenticeship to expertise. As a result, the learner is assimilated into that community and adopts its culture, becoming most likely a contributor to its progress. Shirky (2008) who cites Brown and Duguid (2000), discusses some instances of successful learning occurring into communities of practice: the Hewlett-Packard and the Xerox examples. By facilitating conversation between employees through the use of walkie-talkies, these companies fostered the formation of communities of practice which in turn foster learning. This proved to be less costly than the traditional professional development.
Note: I plan to find out more about Brown’s work at http://www.johnseelybrown.com/
Question to be ruminated later: How does perfectability comes to terms with formal standards which are meant to assure perfection within a given territory (i.e., medicine, genetic engineering).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought it was quite interesting too. It reminds me also of the stubs (is that what they are called?) mentioned in the making of Wikipedia. A person places a placeholder for an object of interest. Later another person adds on to the stub. That is a little off subject but I'm simply typing and thinking later. You know, publish then filter, lol.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. This point also was of interest to me. The idea that smaller groups allow for more detail. IOW, when you are very narrow focused there is more room for a small group that is positively critical. This would form, for instance, around photography or specific photographs and how to make them better. As I get comments from others about my photos I can find out how to make them better or how to do a certain thing, filter a certain way, get a certain effect, etc. I think the more experienced person can always learn from others BUT I think seeking out those that are even better than ourselves can stretch us even more. I know, when I play guitar, that I can improve much faster if I play with those that are better. But, alas, I hardly ever get into that situation, thus remaining at a plane or sameness.
I'm not so sure that standards of practice are perfect but merely standards. Usually the standards are set quite high. I know, for instance, that the threshold levels for air quality in factories are 1000x higher than necessary and this is often true of pesticide residues. OTOH, I'm not sure that in medicine that they are high enough. Another question is how rationale are standards in regard to cost/benefit analysis? IOW, can we be too safe? Can we be so safe that commerce is halted and other countries gain all the advantages? Has this happened in the USA? What is the proper balance between risk-taking and safety?
Thanks for the link to John Seely Brown. That is an excellent link and I just spent the last half an hour review his website and videos. I am very interested in workplace learning and am going to concentrate on this aspect of internet learning this semester.
ReplyDelete