Comments on Economist debate rumbles on... Part 2: The RebuttalTypePad2008-01-21T16:24:34ZEwan McIntoshhttps://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2008/01/economist-debat/comments/atom.xml/jon commented on 'Economist debate rumbles on... Part 2: The Rebuttal'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451f00f69e200e54febd0fd88332008-01-22T00:33:42Z2008-01-22T00:33:43Zjonhttp://talesfromthe.netNo semantics in this post :-) Adam made a great point about many of the "experts" being condescending to practitioners....<p>No semantics in this post :-)</p>
<p>Adam made a great point about many of the "experts" being condescending to practitioners. [As I pointed out in the thread, the whole structure is even more marginalizing to students, who aren't even allowed a 'guest particpant' post.] I've been thinking about Marc Andreessen's blog post <a href="http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/01/education-centr.html" rel="nofollow">Education-centric Ning social networks proliferating like bunny rabbits</a> from a few weeks ago, and find myself wondering what their perspectives would be on the issue. Has anybody asked them?</p>
<p>It's also interesting watch this spread through different sectors of the blogosphere -- or not, as the case may be. If the pro camp wanted to make their case more effectively, they could actively reach out to networks like the WoC and tech blogospheres ... and since it's election season in the US, perhaps also the political blogospheres and discussion groups, where education policy and spending is a hot topic. The discussion so far reflects the concerns several people have expressed that while the technology potentially <i>can</i> be enormously empowering, in practice it may be more likely to reinforce existing hierarchies.</p>
<p>Obviously, I don't think this is the only possibility -- and I totally agree with Ewan's point about the power of social networking technologies to reveal the otherwise-hidden reality. One thing that really jumps out at me is the antipathy so many people have for Facebook without having taken the time to understand it -- not just in the Economist debate but for example on this <a href="http://gigaom.com/2008/01/20/social-networks-from-the-80s-to-the-00s/" rel="nofollow"> guest column on GigaOM</a>. There are plenty of good reasons to be concerned about and even dislike Facebook (starting with their <a href="http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=46" rel="nofollow">horrible record on privacy and trust</a>), but to see it solely as a time-waster or "only" a tool for socializing misses the point badly. The public and participative nature of these conversations makes the extent of this ostriching much clearer -- and the discourse associated with it helps point out some of the causes and possible remedies, as well as giving a chance to engage on terms that might lead at least some of the nay-sayers to explore.</p>
<p><br />
</p>Jon commented on 'Economist debate rumbles on... Part 2: The Rebuttal'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451f00f69e200e54febbfa588332008-01-21T23:43:38Z2008-01-25T02:51:14ZJonhttp://profile.typekey.com/JonPincus/Another good post, Ewan, and thanks for sharing the Twitter logs. I certainly agree that it would be too bad...<p>Another good post, Ewan, and thanks for sharing the Twitter logs.</p>
<p>I certainly agree that it would be too bad if the debate got sidetracked into <i>only</i> the discussion of semantics; but I think it's a useful discussion to have, both because it improves communication (especially for those who may be new to the conversation) and because it often reveals assumptions that people may be unaware of. By taking advantage of the characteristics of web-based discussions (relatively easy linking, no restrictions on the number of threads) and forking off another thread so that these two topics can proceed in parallel, danah gave a great illustration of a way in which social networking technologies let you do things that are much harder with physical conversation -- in much the same way as Ewan's constructing his opening argument with social networking technologies.</p>
<p>And it seems to me that Ewan's "it's all subject to change" argument is unfair to danah and Nicole's definition for for social network sites as in terms of profiles, connection lists, and access to others' connections lists. I'm not saying it's necessarily the right definition, but it certainly is stable enough in response to technology changes to be useful.</p>
<p>Oh darn. I got sidetracked into a discussion of semantics, exactly what everybody was complaining about! My bad ...</p>Ewan McIntosh commented on 'Economist debate rumbles on... Part 2: The Rebuttal'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451f00f69e200e54fff104988342008-01-21T20:15:19Z2008-01-21T20:15:19ZEwan McIntoshhttp://edu.blogs.com"I doubt, however, that is the how the kids in this Frontline documentary would define "social networking technologies". Exactly. They...<p>"I doubt, however, that is the how the kids in this Frontline documentary would define "social networking technologies".</p>
<p>Exactly. They wouldn't define, since the way they use the technology defines it, and is often not in the way the software designers had envisaged. If you speak to anyone who's created the technology, in my experience, they're always working to innovate based on the way their customers have exploited the unexpected. For them to define what the users SHOULD use their technology for would just be laughable and, importantly, unprofitable.</p>
<p>Likewise, I defy anyone to define what social networking is, with a semantically correct version, because next week they'll be horribly out of touch again.</p>Will Richardson commented on 'Economist debate rumbles on... Part 2: The Rebuttal'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451f00f69e200e54feb4e2088332008-01-21T20:05:24Z2008-01-21T20:05:25ZWill Richardsonhttp://www.weblogg-ed.comHey Ewan, Thanks for continuing the conversation on this. It's been really interesting, and I've been doing some gut checking...<p>Hey Ewan,</p>
<p>Thanks for continuing the conversation on this. It's been really interesting, and I've been doing some gut checking about why the semantics still bother me. (I went through this <a href="http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/blogging-vs-journalingagain/" rel="nofollow">way back when</a> when we were trying to figure out how to define blogging as well....I must be a glutton.)</p>
<p>Just to clarify, I'm one of those "educators [who] see their own blog, Twitter accounts or even Flickr pages as the basis of their social networking." Nor do I "see social networking as the cosseted, pigeon-holed, clearly defined vision that the academics and 'experts' do" in my own practice. </p>
<p>I doubt, however, that is the how the kids in this <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/" rel="nofollow">Frontline documentary</a> would define "social networking technologies". (Or at least not the way the media would: "MySpace. YouTube. Facebook. Nearly every teen in America is on the Internet every day, socializing with friends and strangers alike, "trying on" identities, and building a virtual profile of themselves--one that many kids insist is a more honest depiction of who they really are than the person they portray at home or in school." Yikes!) And I doubt it's how their parents would define this either. </p>
<p>We're really not on opposite sides here, obviously. But to say that the "the vast majority of teacher professionals believe" a definition of social networking that is built on social tools and not social sites assumes that you can read the minds of the absolute vast majority of educators from around the world whose knowledge, experience and contexts you haven't heard from before, during or after the debate. Yes, in the seven years since I started blogging about this, there has been a very large wave of educators who understand the shifts. But that group, imho, is still vastly, vastly smaller than the group that still has little or no idea that something is afoot, and what little they do know is defined by reports such as the above and is not framed in any way around the learning that these tools afford us.</p>Adam Sutcliffe commented on 'Economist debate rumbles on... Part 2: The Rebuttal'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451f00f69e200e54feb367188332008-01-21T19:04:55Z2008-01-21T19:04:55ZAdam Sutcliffehttp://thegordonschools.typepad.co.uk/asuNice thoughtful post Ewan. I've been trying to follow the debate around the blogosphere and I find myself getting really...<p>Nice thoughtful post Ewan. I've been trying to follow the debate around the blogosphere and I find myself getting really quite annoyed at the semantic debate, which seems to have prevailed over the real debate. Does it really matter how a social network is defined. What matters in this context is how the network is used to improve the education of the kids we teach. I'm pretty sure I am not going to use a social networking site such as Facebook with my students mainly because I find it clunky and overbearing. However I would use my social network of my blog(s), twitter, seesmic (perhaps) and various other tools (skype et al). That is my social network.<br />
To be frank I have found some of the posts/comments by "experts" really rather condescending to those of us who are trying to use this stuff in real life situations whilst at the same time juggling the usual stuff we have to deal with in school. What is wrong with us trying things out, not researching the possible effectiveness beforehand? To my mind, nothing...this last 18 months since I started dabbling in emerging web techs in my class has energised my teaching like nothing else since I worked in Cameroon. This can only be good for students as long as I continue to focus on the students. Keep it up Ewan. </p>