Variations in Online Communiities

Social media is all the buzz, but it may be useful to look at the variations in the types of online teams and communities because this may influence the design and development of these efforts.

In virtual teams and communities Pat Sobrero presents a typology that distinguishes between work teams, communities of interest and communities of practice. She then notes the differences of each type in terms of focus, membership, trust, motivation and so forth.

The differences between communities of interest and practice is particularly useful in regards to thinking about whether people are focused on the content or problem or on the social process or community. In short, a community of interest may be more interested in getting more information about a topic than participating in a social learning or networking process. These differences in the focus, motivation and trust in these types of communities suggest that educators who are interested in developing a community of interest should create ways for people to stay up to date about the topic, new information on the topic, create methods of obtaining deeper, richer and more complex information the the topic.

In developing a community of practice, the focus should be more on the "social" aspects of learning and developing relationships between participants. Learning tools would involve group engagement and group problem solving. Many of the roles described by Aaron Ebata in Essential Roles for Communities of Practice would need to be considered in order to develop an effective community.

Sobrero doesn't comment on whether "communities of interest" can grow into "communities of practice" and/or whether there is a developmental relationship between these two types of communities.

Essential Roles for Communities of Practice

At the recent National eXtension Meeting, several representatives from the “pioneer” eXtension Communities of Practice participated in a panel to discuss “lessons learned”. As I reflected on our experiences the last few years, and on the talks at the meeting, a lesson that popped into mind was “Letting people lead in their areas of passion”. This gets at the need for shared or distributed leadership in important roles within the CoPs.

What are these roles? Here is what I came up with:

• Community Minders
  Those who focus on keeping CoP members engaged and connected. They would pay attention for the need for communication, and would be the first point of contact for those needing information. They would help recruit, welcome, and orient new members by formal (e.g., newsletters) and informal (ad hoc emails and phone calls) means, and would help plan virtual and face-to-face meetings.
  


• Evaluation Wonks
  Those who serve as the “conscience” of the CoP, who remind us of the overall goals of the program and the need to be accountable by documenting our impact.
  


• GuruGeeks/TechnoTerrors
  Those with an affinity and aptitude for tinkering “under the hood” (i.e., in the Wiki). They might facilitate or take over the entering and formatting of content, lead the development of new applications, or be the liaison with web designers and programmers in applying technology to the CoP’s content.
  


• Google Juicers
  These may be GuruGeeks/TechnoTerrors, but their specific mission would be in the area of “search engine optimization (SEO)” – they would put content into web form, and monitor and modify content to conform to SEO “best practices”.
  


• Web Evangelists/Net Nobbers (for “Network Hobnobbers”)
  Those who would focus on external communication (with Communities of Interest) by participating in online social networks using Web 2.0 tools. They could have two related goals: (1) dispel myths and misconceptions about child development and parenting by promoting research-based information, and (2) promoting the CoP as a source for research-based information.

There are other important roles, of course (e.g. fund raising!) but I offer these as starting points. Where do you fit in?

The machine is them/us/you/me

What the heck does this web 2.0 social networking stuff have to do with us anyway?

I’ve been reflecting on the place that the “social networking” phenomena has in the online world, and what that means for our work. After hearing presentations by Dr. Michael Wesch, Andrew Barnett, and our own Dr. Bob Hughes, Jr., I’m convinced that we need to pay attention to playing the social network game for two major reasons.

Playing for for fame and fortune

1. If you don’t show up in the first page (and actually the first 5 entries) in a Google search result, you cannot count on being found.


2. A relatively small number of web-savvy geeks are determining what gets to the top of the Google food chain. These folks are dedicated participants in the way of the (social) network, and they determine what everyone else is most likely to find on a particular topic.


3. In order to appear high on the search list, we have to capture the hearts and minds of those who play in these social networks.


4. In order to capture their hearts and minds, we need to play in same playgrounds, and be willing to figure out the rules and join in their games. Standing on the periphery and pouting will not get us noticed.

Playing to spread the word

In his talk, Bob used the controversy surrounding vaccinations and autism as an example of how “experts” have failed to engage in the kinds of conversations (in blogs, etc) that would counter unsubstantiated beliefs that have draw enthusiastic support from non-scientists. The public does not pay attention to research-based outlets - blog entries or videos that “go viral” have a greater chance of getting widespread press and public attention. We need folks who are willing to spread the word in personal and public arenas so that our views can be “part of the machine”.

What does this mean?

Does this mean that we ALL need to dive immediately in the world of Twitter, Facebook, del.icio.us, Digg, etc? I don’t think so – but it means we need to find CoP members who could and would! And we need to provide some support for CoP members who would like to join this brave new world and give them concrete suggestions for how they can promote JITP (or any other website they might support). These “web evangelists” could be:

• writing their own blog posts or commenting on others’
• linking on their own websites
• providing links and tags in social networking sites like del.icio.us
• providing ratings in sites like Digg
• creating or linking to media content in sites like YouTube or Flikr

But how do we find these people? What kind of characteristics or qualities should the have? How do we recruit them? How do we provide initial guidance?

National Conference on Extension Communities of Practice

I thought it would be nice to include you in our participation in the conference this week so I invited Diana Del Campo, Aaron Ebata and Sally Martin to join me on my blog to post some things about the conference during the week.

I have subscribed all of you to the blog so you will get our posting as email, but if you really want to participate and comment about our ideas, then you will have to go to the blog and comment directly. (Note: You are getting this email as a first posting so you could comment on this to begin with.)

I don't think we will overwhelm you with email, but I do hope that by our reporting information and ideas that this will be a way of continuing to develop Just In Time Parenting.

Here is the agenda for the conference. If you see any sessions that you think we should definitely attend, please let us know. We look forward to our blog conversation.