Social Media & the Creative Collective

Abstract

The tools of Web 2.0 are known, well documented tools: RSS, blogs, vlogs, wikis, bookmarking, and the ever-emerging, countless additions of custom social applications.  Beyond these mechanisms, however, the rise of social media represents the emergence of a polycentric, multimodal knowledge/idea share that serves as the foundation for new forms of innovation and creativity.  These forms emphasize communal over individual achievements, and it’s this collective resourcing – the ingenuity that only comes from creating together - that is the source and power of new media.

Treatment

Early students of Web 2.0 described its core qualities as participation, sharing, and communication used to facilitate community (Miller, 2005).  Tim O’Reilly (2007) called it an “architecture of participation” (p. 17); more than a single product Web 2.0 was noted to represent a “platform” designed to evoke what James Suriowecki called "the wisdom of crowds" (qtd. in O'Reilly 26).

Clay Shirky (2010) explored motivations for participation and discovered categories of personal and social motivations.  Through his research, personal motives for participation included autonomy and competence; people wanted to feel self-directed and also wanted to grow their abilities, or increase their competence.  Social motivations included feelings of connectedness and generosity.  In the realm of social media, Shirky related a 2006 study by Yochai Benkler and Helen Nissenbaum to conclude “social motivations reinforce the personal ones” (p. 78). 

Essentially, research profiled participants as offering their work, their knowledge, and their ideas because they wanted to, because they found it gratifying to offer themselves to others.  This was especially true when individuals were able to offer themselves to others in a space where others gather, where membership and interaction and growth were qualities one could expect of the gathering space.

Further, shifts in the type of participation became apparent.  “People Formerly Known as the Audience” (Shirky, 2010, p. 64) were observed to be an emerging and powerful force of new thinking and creative expression.  Web 2.0 seemed to herald an emphasis on user-led design, where the most active users were at the forefront of use initiatives rather than passive, or even merely vocal, consumers. 

Additionally, the power of creativity was noticeably enhanced.  Shirky (2010) noted “users can press a tool into service in ways that designers never imagined, and those new functions are often discovered and perfected not by a burst of solo inspiration but by exploration and improvement among a collaborative group” (pp. 102-103).  This illuminated the possibility within what Shirky called the “hothouse environment of a collaborative circle”  (p. 104). 

Environments where people began teaming their knowledge and skills proliferated across new media; they enticed and evoked new and unexpected outcomes from participants who loved doing what they do, and loved sharing it with others.

This established the most important distinction between the old and new forms.  Social media were seen to reject top-down information distribution and the producer-consumer dichotomy (Shirky, 2010).  “Old logic, television logic, treated audiences as little more than collections of individuals.  Their members didn’t create any real value for one another.  The logic of digital media, on the other hand, allows the people formerly known as the audience to create value for one another every day (p. 42).”  He goes so far as to conclude “media that’s targeted at you but doesn’t include you may not be worth sitting still for” (p. 213).

Conclusion

Old rules for message management and targeted influence do not apply in new media forms.  Harnessing the power of social media means anticipating that it needs to remain wild.  Platform architects can be strategic about building environments conducive to sharing, by structuring defaults or cultivating culture in the recruitment of first-users (Shirky, 2010); however, powerful innovation happens where participants feel unbridled.  Those wishing to utilize the power of Web 2.0 must be capable of releasing the ambition to contrive a defined outcome.  This is the invitation, the call to collaborate in shared space, releasing ownership and centralized control to welcome the unexpected genius of the collective.

References

Miller, P. (2005). Web 2.0: Building the new library. Ariadne, (45).  Retrieved from: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/ 

O'Reilly, T. (2007) What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software.  Communications & Strategies, 1.  Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008839 

Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. New York: Penguin Press.

thevoyager (Poster). Web 2.0 logos [Image]. (2007, February 22). Retrieved February 27, 2011, from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thevoyagers/398768220/

[Untitled image of Web 2.0]. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from:

http://frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk/evidence-based-mental-health-and-web-2-0-4/

Critical Thinking: a Cohort's Exploration

Why Begin with Critical Thinking?

This is, after all, a PhD program at a respected institution, yes?  Shouldn’t critical thinking be an admissions requirement? Or a prerequisite? With these questions, I ever-so-slightly began to doubt the intensity of a Fielding education. However, time to reflect and dialogue with my cohort has illuminated new perspective that I suspect may have helped me tap into the wisdom of starting us with this foundational topic. 

(Wileytoons 20 January 2000, http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/Critical_thinking/Intro_to_critl_thinking.html) 

What Critical Thinking Is

As a cohort, we were asked to review Wikipedia and other suggested websites to guide our reflections on the nature of critical thinking. The materials emphasized the necessity for practical application of deliberation of premises, organization of thought, and an ability to recognize relevance and validity. Core skills included “observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and meta-cognition” (“Critical thinking,” 2011, “Skills,” para. 1).

The prime definition of critical thinking is delightfully summarized here (“Critical Thinking,” 2010):

What Critical Thinking Asks of Us

The study of critical thinking asks us to consider how we think, but perhaps more essentially, who we are in relationship to our thinking.

Richard Paul’s work highlights methods for cultivating the capacity for critical thinking through defined development stages, and strategies for advancing progress. These strategies emphasize issues of character, emotionality, open-mindedness, group association, and rigor (Paul, 2001).

Specific traits associated with effective critical thinking include “intellectual humility, empathy, integrity, perseverance, courage, autonomy, confidence in reason” among others (“Critical thinking,” 2011, “Habits or traits of mind,” para. 2). 

Further, without these traits, critical thinking is compromised. Individuals who lack maturity and openness can fall prey to self-deception rhetoric, fallacy, manipulation and may even be inclined to use the basic critical thinking competencies to perpetuate invalid or unsubstantiated argument (“Critical thinking,” 2011).

Critical thinking loses in a contest against reactive positioning. 

What we Ask of Ourselves

In this assignment, where we are asked to each weigh in on the concept of critical thinking, and where we have shared with and challenged one another in forum discussion and in our published blogs, our cohort has set forth expectations of our learning community. Our newly formed, tiny ensemble has worked this week to declare, together, how we think and who we are in relationship to thinking.   

Critical thinking, scholarly thinking, means we must visit and revisit, theory and evidence alongside our emotional attachments and personal inclinations.

This is not a lighthearted endeavor. It’s easy to agree with or add to our own reflections. Yet, when we encounter new or opposing thinking with the ability to truly consider it, the result can turn a belief upside down, challenge deep-rooted emotional attachments, or bump up against amygdala-level fears.

It can be difficult to know when one’s own thinking is obscured by shadow motivations; jealously, willfulness, greed, aggression are some of my favorites. I ask for, and promise you, persistence and compassion, in equal measure. As a cohort, we will be experiencing these challenges, together.

It makes sense to me, now, that we begin by reflecting on and practicing the ways of our thinking as a learning community. We begin by evaluating how we think. We begin by acknowledging that, working together, we will grow.

Critical thinking. (n.d.)  In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 7, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Critical thinking [Video file]. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngLm50FkJM4

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking in everyday life: 9 strategies. The Critical Thinking Community.  Retrieved February 7, 2011 from http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/sts-ct-everyday-life.cfm

Wileytoons [Cartoon]. (2000, January 20). Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/Critical_thinking/Intro_to_critl_thinking.html

New Cohort, New Member

Maybe the first thing to know about me is that I love my job.

I manage a mighty team of creatives within the Network Technology department of T-Mobile. Together, we design, develop, and deploy what has been observed to be some of the most advanced data warehousing work in the business. Recently, I was privileged to lead a collaborative effort involving eight different vendors and five internal designers, working with hundreds of terabytes of data, to fulfill an enterprise initiative that produced meaningful, actionable results. It’s pretty exciting stuff. We have a lot of fun.

While the technology is fascinating, what really energizes me about the work is the concept building, the process design, and the structural methods used to invoke the genius of the collective team. That’s really the heart of it for me: the collective, the team, the community. I am primarily interested in the ways we are together, the way we build and advance the ways/means/products of our togetherness.

My master’s degree is in Applied Behavioral Science from a program that emphasizes study in organizational systems. I carry with me a continued enthusiasm for the study of leadership, culture, and community, and remain informed by some of the more clinical insights from the program. I am interested in how media and technology affect our togetherness in our systems at home, at work, in our communities, and within the national/global political frame.

In my undergraduate studies, I worked through a broad swath of humanities topics, returning several times to visit theatre and Jungian studies. Performance, presentation, and symbology are ever-present in my thinking and all aspects of my work. Theatricality and aesthetic are big components of technology development, corporate/organizational leadership, and creating optimal work structures.

From Fielding, I want to find a placement for these highly active and ongoing mental occupations. On a purely intuitive/feel-y level, it’s as if there’s a conversation happening somewhere, and I’m supposed to be there to be part of it, but haven’t learned the language yet. I’m looking to all of you to help me learn and practice, so that if/when there is a contribution that I can make, I will be fully capable of joining.