Task 3B- Theories relating to Networking Part 1 (re-written)

Do the concepts prompt you to think differently about yourself and Professional Networks?

Yes it does and I've found some of the things mentioned in the reader that make me think differently. I've also found that I disagree with the theories of Affiliation and Constructionism. This is because no-one is obligated to be a friend to someone. There is also no difference between Individualistic Cultures and Collectivist Cultures. Yes all cultures are different in regards to the rules and regulations we have in place. But we all make friends in the same way, by saying ‘Hello’ or Ola’ or Bonjour or whatever language it may be. So how can it be different? And with Constructionism you don’t have to practice something to gain reality, or live in reality for that matter. Also with Constructionism not all interaction is by a social network. How can it be? A lot of people still write letters and still use face to face interaction today. Maybe not the younger generation but people over the age of 18 do. They have to. For example when they apply for a job they are sometimes always required to write a covering letter. It all goes back to what I said in my Critical Reflection on the 1^st reader (link to Critical Reflection, and how it relates to this subject).

On a good note I've realised since Thursday 24th November that I agree with the theories of Connectivism and Communities of Practice (even though they left out the bad bits), bar two Principles of Connectivism. G, Siemens says

“Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions... Nurturing and maintain connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.” (2004)

I strongly disagree on this point because nobody has to be opinionated to learn and gain knowledge. If we were all opinionated for this reason how would we learn? All we would learn is selfishness. Yes you have the right to your own opinion, but if it’s the wrong opinion, someone is offended by it, or if it goes against the rules and regulations of the learning institution, they you’d be in big trouble. Should we always take the risk or play safe and write our opinions in our journal?

What I do agree with though is remaining Principles of Connectivism and the Principles of the Communities of Practice. This is because what is mentioned makes sense in current networks and in the current world we live in. Our communities often overlap with each other with similar related content. It is also because Communities of Practice is a stepping stone for knowledge, and it provides support for us to make sense of our heritage.

I realise that I need to get out of this huge hole I've been placed in by my current network. These concepts in the reader have made me think that How could I let this happen? Why? Do I deserve it? It's ok in my BAPP network but professionally it's gone downhill.

How might they provide insights into your current situation or future needs?

The concepts in the reader have provided me with key information as to how I can get out of my current situation safely and to prevent me from making the same mistake again. They will also help me to move on and to help me with the continuation of the course and my practice. 

Are there other perspectives or theories that have value to you?


Theory of Cooperation: 


"All the world loves a winner. You know why they love the winner? Because they think you know something. You had to know something in order to win. So we admire them. The winner doesn't learn anything. No the Loser, the Loser learns something. About himself. Losing teaches yourself. So the loser's the winner." 


Hough, Coleman (2005) 

I found that Prisoner's Dilemma (Game Theory) really put quite a bit of things into place for me via my questions about my current practice that over the last week I have begun to have.

I conducted two tests of this game. The first one went well because the Serendip and I kept cooperating for 6 turns. The second test didn't work out so well as I wanted to see what would happen if you were selfish and just competed the whole way through. I competed and after the 10th turn I wanted to try again and when I did the wizard came up and said "Les Jeux Sont Faits" (The Chips are down in English). I won but now have the fatal fate upon me. (Not keen on this game and the factors behind it. I don't believe in Wizards or anything like that.)

This theory relates to my current practice because we have a lack of cast members and 2 of our cast members are filming. There isn't much cooperation in the group at the moment, and I'm feeling like I want to scream and say "just get on with it!" I never did though. I see more selfishness in this group than cooperation, which has me thinking "Can I just continue my practice??????" "Could we just have a peaceful rehearsal?".......

When Axelrod conducted the test with experts from all kinds of backgrounds from Economics, Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, and Mathematics. His highest result came out very differently to my results. The difference is that I said I was at first going to Cooperate and then second Competed. Axlerod didn't choose which way the test was going to work. He didn't control the game. He just left the experts to it, and just waited for the results.

All these theories relate to my current (my ex-) network in so many ways that I have never thought of until now. The way that Axlerod talks about cooperating or competing for something, made me realise that I could no longer be a part of such a theatre group for very much longer. Through Axelrod’s theory I now know what to expect if something like this arises again, and what to do in such a situation. 


Bibliography


1.  Hough, C 
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00794zy/Full_Frontal/)
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290212/fullcredits#cast)