TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

Network Homogeneity versus Heterogeneity

One of the things I’m beginning to love about the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course is the notion that I’m constantly being brought to either argue/support or re-examine my views, positions, and opinions.  Herein is one of the key values of diversity in a network.

To a fair degree Network Homogeneity does not inspire rapid innovation or alterations of perspective.  By nature, if everyone in a network sees things the same way; has the same experience base and perspectives on a given subjectmatter; and indeed agrees on everything - you don’t have much fodder for discussion or further exploration.  Heterogeneity on the other hand, can be an invaluable driver for learning.

By introducing different points of view, personal experiences, value systems, etcetera - each individual in a network avails themselves to a far greater pool of knowledge and experience than would be the case were the individual to remain an island unto themselves.   Part and parcel to this, in interacting and exploring the different concepts and nodes in the network, individuals are brought to face concepts that are not necessarily in agreement to their current view points.

At this point, in an ideal situation in which objectivity and open mindedness reigns, the learner will examine the concepts revealed by the newly discovered node, and having done that synthesise the information with their pre-existing  understanding of related subjectmatter.  This can - and hopefully will - lead to a deeper appreciation of the intricacies of the subject, up to and including a review of their previous assumptions or beliefs.

Deadheads as a Network

In the case of my last post, I argued that Deadheads are a network and not a group.  The author of An Educational Technology Blog disagrees (”CCK08 - More Networks and Groups or Why Stephen May be Right“), saying:

“Something like Deadheads is  trickier.  Since members of the group self select and identify (nobody defines deadhead until social scientists start researching them), finding the boundary of the group is difficult.  Nevertheless, my instinct wants to call Deadheads a group.”

In my interpretation of their post at least, the author describes networks as reflecting the “relationships” between individuals, whereas members of a group feature a “common shared state.”

Defining Groups and Networks

Now having read this, I realised I haven’t outlined what I mean when I say groups and networks.  The short answer here is “watch this clip by Stephen Downes“.  Downes quite succinctly summarises my existing views on the matter.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4126240905912531540

To elaborate though, the significant difference between Groups and Networks to me boils down to the role and place of the individual within the organisational entity, and therefore the preservation - or undermining - of the sense of each person’s individuality and uniqueness.

For example, groups to me seek to summarise; whereas networks seek to aggregate.  Groups set out to establish a singular vision, mission, or set of explicitly identified objectives to which all members are expected to adhere and conform.  Networks devolve these concepts to the individual to decide, and the resulting reality for the entity is much more holistic and comprehensive.  This is why it’s so much more difficult to define a network than a group.

In terms of my example of Fraternities and Deadheads then, Fraternities implement rules and regulations, establish oaths and creeds, and wear letters; all of which serve to create a sense of unity between members, and depict a shared explicitly outlined value system.  The role of the individual here is beneath that of the group in the social heirarchy.  Adopting the group’s identity involves abandoning a degree of your uniqueness and personal identity.

Deadheads are a different matter entirely.  Yes there are certainly characteristics that connect one Deadhead from the next, in particular visual elements or symbols such as the Steal Your Face, as well as a common theme of tie-dye clothing.  However unlike Fraternities, which enact explicit rules and requirements on where and when symbols are used or worn, the nature of when and where Steal Your Face’s or tie-dye is worn carries no requirements or expectations.  It is, at its core, an individual’s decision to make.  Indeed, Grateful Dead guitarist, Bob Weir, reportedly hates tie-dye.

Effectively there are no requirements for membership in a network; in fact, there is no membership to be had.  The extent of your ties to the network are directly related to the degree of your participation within it.

Even more than that though is the significance placed on individual freedom in the hippie and Deadhead communities.  Individuals are not expected to follow a core policy handed down from a president, or central office.  Indeed there is none whatsoever to be found.

It’s important to note here though that within these communities you may find the presence of groups; I don’t mean to imply they don’t exist at all.  I would argue, though, that the extent of a group presence amongst Deadheads is minimal at most - and most likely limited to small autonomous groups.  There certainly isn’t a well-established social hierarchy, because that is in direct contrast to a commonly shared value.

Characteristics versus Criteria

Regarding groups, the author of An Educational Technology Blog argues “I can, with some clarity define what groups I’m in.  (Male, English speaker, glasses wearer, etc.)”

To me there is a significant difference between characteristics that may be shared by individuals, and criteria or requirements for membership in a group.  The same characteristics may be present in both networks and groups.  What makes one a group and another a network, at least in my view, comes down to the place of the individual relative to the entity or organisation.

So to me, things like male, English speaking, and wearer of glasses refer to characteristics that describe an individual and not necessarily criteria for membership in a specific group.  It is possible that group membership may incorporate requirements that mandate certain characteristics - such as English-speaking only - but the characteristic alone is insufficient to determine whether it refers to a network, group, or indeed neither.

Update: Having talked to several different people about this, the concensus is increasingly that Deadheads are a group and not a network.  I’m still trying to get my head around this so watch this space; or better still jump into the comments are and voice your thoughts on the matter.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 at 10:37 pm and is filed under CCK08. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.