I just finished reading Barry Wellman’s article on “Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism” and have a thought I’d like to explore with respect to parallels between the article and change conflicts in education.

Background on Concepts

In the paper, Wellman discusses the evolving nature of relationships and interactivity from little boxes, through Glocalization to Networked Individualism.

Little Boxes, Wellman, argues, are characterised by conditions where individuals are constrained by geography and minimal or no opportunities for transportation or communication, and as such are “socially and cognitively encapsulated by homogeneous, broadly-embracing groups.” In this culture, the role of place has a strong influence on the dynamic and relationships that develop. Namely, that there is a great deal of spatial familiarity, are more prevalent social hierarchies, since people are regularly in physical contact with one another and know a great deal about one another.

As opportunities increase in the wake of technological innovation and improvements in infrastructure, the role and place of individuals begins to change. Gradually the influence of place begins to decline, as people are able to move from one location to another, thus gaining exposure to different people, conditions and opportunities for interaction.

Finally, in the wake of even further technological innovation, particularly surrounding advances in wireless communication technologies – such as mobile phones, wireless internet connectivity, and online social media – relationships evolve to the point where they revolve around people, and independent from location. As Wellman writes, the people become the portals.

Parallels to Education

While reading the article, one paragraph led me to draw strong connections between Wellman’s theoretical discussion on sociology and network dynamics and the ongoing debate about educational change, and the existence of technology in the classroom – especially with respect to social media.

On page 3, Wellman writes:

“This is the world that much CSCW “groupware” has been developed for, including videoconferencing, collaborative writing, and workflow. Groupware assumes a defined, fully visible population; focused on aspects of a single joint task; with all directly accessible to all. These are viable solutions, but incomplete solutions and possibly minority solutions in their assumption that the small group is all encompassing and all-important.”

Upon reading this I immediately realised that much of education is founded on a “little boxes” view of the classroom, and the relationships and roles within it. Welman describes little boxes as being characterised by fairly rigid structures:

“These groups often have boundaries for inclusion and structured, hierarchical, organization: supervisors and employees, parents and children, pastors and churchgoers, organizational executives and members. In such a society, each interaction is in its place: one group at a time.”

“Little Box” Classrooms

Classrooms are still largely based on a spatial-centric model in which communication and access to information are seen as relatively scarce. In these conditions the role of the teacher is that of gateway to information, and in turn, knowledge. As such the relationship between teacher and student are clearly delineated – the teacher has a pre-existing understanding of the knowledge, cognisance of its implications, and access to the information while students did not. As a result, the teacher becomes situated at the centre of the classroom, bearing the sole responsibility of leading student through the content.

Yet access to information and experts who grasp its significance is no longer a scarcity. Neither are the opportunities to interact, communicate, share and explore restricted to the classroom. They can happen anywhere and everywhere, independent of place. In effect, classrooms need not be the sole spaces where learning occurs; it can – and does – occur anywhere the student is.

The Conflict

Herein lay the conflict. Educational systems are founded upon an outdated view that information and access to opportunities for communication and interaction are scarce commodities, and maintain an adherence to strict hierarchical structures that delineate roles of students and teachers.

This is clearly visible in existing technical infrastructure as well. Environments such as as Learning Management Systems (LMS) mirror the central view of the classroom, with course content and interaction revolving around the course, not the students. LMS are essentially virtual representations of the traditional classroom, with all the roles, restrictions and social hierarchies this entails. Perhaps not surprisingly, LMS continue to be one of the core components of computer-based learning and teaching in education.

When examining the use of social media in the classroom, the opposite is generally true. With the exception of pockets of use system wide, the prevailing view above and beyond confusion or lack of familiarity, is one of cautious interest, or scepticism. Teachers tend to look at how technology can be integrated into existing systems and structures – and thus retain continuity and the status quo – rather than how they can free up the classroom, pierce institutional barriers, level hierarchies, and enable students and teachers to explore new and different directions.

Importantly, the notion of what constitutes pedagogical validity remains in the hands of the teacher, the classroom, or the institution, rather than the student – with learning outcomes, aims and objectives defined not by the learner, but the teacher. Tools that are perceived to be of little educational relevance are not used, actively discouraged, or even blocked completely by filters.

Disruptive Technology

In my view, Wellman’s paper clearly exemplifies the notion of “disruptive technology,” and how organisations rally against it in attempts to maintain the status quo. Clearly, the implications of a new technology extend far beyond the tool itself, because in introducing new affordances you almost inevitably affect existing relationships, structures and ways of working.

As Marshall McLuhan famously said: “The medium is the message.”

It is in some ways of little surprise then why some people are so skeptical, averse or even in direct opposition to social media in education. Not only does it draw into question some fundamental logistical considerations, it introduces an entirely new dynamic that is virtually diametrically opposed to existing institutional systems.

Glocalisation as the Middle Ground

Having said this, one of the core benefits of course-based education is the ability to approach a body of knowledge with your peers, and thus enable the social construction of knowledge within a cohort of individuals with whom you have face-to-face access. So there are elements of both the little boxes models and networked individual that should be incorporated into the mix. Wellman’s notion of glocalisation may prove valuable here.

Glocalization represents the middle ground between little boxes and Networked Individualism (think global + localised). It marks the stage where people are still loosely tied to space and place, with the locally shared circumstances that entails, but have also begun to establish network ties that span locations and geographies – even cultures – and thus take on a global perspective as well

His discussion on the nature and advantages of glocalization is worth quoting at-length:

“…glocalized connectivity affords fluid systems for using ramified networks to access resources at work and in the community: material, cognitive, and influential. No more are people identified as members of a single group; they can switch among multiple networks. Switching and maneuvering among networks, people can use ties to one network to bring resources to another. Indeed, the very fact of their ties to other networks will be a resource, creating the possibility of linkage, trade and cooperation. Knowing how to network (on and offline) becomes a human capital resource, and having a supportive network becomes a social capital resource [2]. The cost is the loss of a palpably present and visible local group at work and in the community that could provide social identity and a sense of belonging. The gain is the increased diversity of opportunity, greater scope for individual agency, and the freedom from a single group’s constrictive control.”

This is particularly relevant from an an educational context, because it suggests that the classroom could retain its role as a gathering place for the course. Students would continue to share a common vision on an established curriculum they explored together, and yet also harness the opportunities in globalisation via social media where each individual seeks out ties beyond the institution for additional real-world relevance, which in turn could be shared with the rest of the class.

In effect, the cohort becomes larger than the sum of its parts, and the instructor becomes an active participant in the learning process. Rather than the single gateway to knowledge, they become a co-learner, as well as sounding board for synthesising information, and vetting it for accuracy.

That being said, glocalization represents a massive shift for the educational system too. However given the range of the debate it may prove to be a valuable middle ground.