Task 3b: Theories Relating to Networking

To understand the theory behind professional networking, it is necessary to first define of the phrase itself. Professional networking is described by Investopedia as, 'A process that fosters the exchange of information and ideas among individuals or groups that share a common interest... one of the implicit objective is to form professional relationships that may boost one's future business and employment prospects' (Investopedia LLC, 2015).

Cooperation

With this in mind, the first concept raised by Axelrod (1984), a political scientist, is that of cooperation. He questions, ‘when should a person cooperate, when should a person be selfish, in an ongoing interaction with another person?’ (Axelrod, 1984, p. vii). This idea that a person will only cooperate for personal gain poses an interesting debate with regard to professional networking and he further posits, ‘how can a potentially cooperative strategy get an initial foothold in an environment which is predominantly noncooperative?’ (Axelrod, 1984, p. viii). I believe that the word ‘foothold’ is an intriguing word choice as it implies that cooperation has a slimmer chance of prevailing over human instinct, however Axelrod (1984) states that this theory is a concern of human strategy rather than human genetics.

From this, his theory of the ‘Prisoner’s dilemma’ emerged. The concept that the success of a player is determined by their ‘tit for tat’ approach to the game is interesting when thinking about networking. This theory suggests that within a networking site, a ‘prosumer’ will continue to contribute and be a part of the community this site offers, until they reach their desired outcome. Axelrod (1984) established that this seemingly selfish process is actually key in creating an effective collaboration. This knowledge then led me to consider my own approach to networking.

Similarly to Axelrod, Paternotte (2014) calls upon the ‘Prisoner’s dilemma’ to explain the concept of Minimal Cooperation. This theory states that people or ‘agents’ will cooperate but only when and where necessary to achieve personal success (Patternote, 2014). He believes that ‘to cooperate is to act together, in unison, in agreement, which suggest some coherence between the agents’ (Paternotte, 2015, p. 46). He states that, ‘minimal cooperation are not uncommon and that human beings are usually quite successful in such setting’ (Paternotte, 2014, p. 49). This raises the argument that cooperating on networking sites through minimal contribution can lead to success for the individual. He also fosters the curious point that ‘all agents have the same collective goal although not everyone’s participation is need to realise it’ (Patternotte, 2014, p.49). On some level, I can see the legitimate argument in this statement, but I cannot dispute that contributing to a site only increases chances of collaboration and collective intelligence, therefore providing professional development opportunities.

For me personally, these are stimulating concepts, because I had not previously considered that while the focus of networking is on collaboration, its main use is for personal gain. Within my own practices, (now I have explored these theories) I can recognise these similarities in my own networking usages. For example, I am a consumer of the TES resources available, yet I have never personally uploaded a resource to this service. This shows how, although I am a part of this network, my aims are personally driven for my own professional development. In this way, am I really using it as a network? Or am I a ‘winner’ of the Prisoner’s dilemma where I use the collaboration simply for my own personal gain? When reflecting on this thought, this actually makes me feel very selfish. I am a great believer in cooperation to achieve success but by examining this theory, I do not believe I am actually currently cooperating on this site. One the other hand, should I feel this way; is this actually acceptable because all humans ‘defect’ when it benefits them, as shown in this theory? I have considered this at length and I do think that is it acceptable to use networking sites for your own personal advantages, but only if your contribution level is sufficient to the site itself. As a result, I will change the way I use the TES website to become more of a contributor than a consumer.

Affiliation

The next concept presented from social psychology is an important concept in networking. Affiliation is a term that Crisp & Turner (2007) define as a basic human need for interaction with others, which they both enjoy and need. As humans, ‘our tendency to seek out others and form close relationships is an inherited trait…providing use with a network of support that will help us when we are in need’ (Crisp & Turner, 2007 p.323). The theory of affiliation shows that it is natural for humans to desire interactions in order to create and build a support team when it is needed. However, the desired level of interaction varies from person to person depending on their personality type as, ‘introverts are likely to steer clear of social interaction to avoid their arousal from reaching uncomfortable levels’ (Crist & Turner, 2007, p. 324). Yet, in extreme levels of none contact, ‘a lack of affiliation may have a lasting negative impact’ (Crisp & Turner, 2007, p322).

Through Task 3a and discussing my current networks, I identified that I do not use networks to their full advantage. This new knowledge has made me questions my innate character and consider the reasons behind my lack of professional networking. I believe the reason that I do not desire to use online networks is two fold: a) I am a more introverted character, therefore I do not enjoy high levels of interaction and b) I enjoy social interaction but I do not enjoy this over Web 2.0 tools where I feel exposed to the dangers of the internet. Ultimately, I feel both are interlinked.

To explain myself more clearly, I believe the above article is discussing real face-to-face human interaction by means of Affiliation and this is very different from using Web 2.0 tools as form of networking. I enjoy human interaction and it is a large part of my work, but I still struggle with the concept of using the Internet to build a community that I feel comfortable in. I understand that this is necessary in the technologically driven world in which we live, and from reading fellow BAPP arts students’ blogs it is clear that in order to continue to develop as a professional, utilising Web 2.0 tool to their full networking potential is critical. I still feel this is something I need to endeavour to develop throughout the course and I believe that it will take me time to adjust to this ‘networking world’, but this knowledge enables me to be more prepared for this task.

I have always assumed that (like many performers) I am an extrovert, therefore it would be natural for me to find networking both enjoyable and natural. Yet through reading this article, I feel I am not as extroverted as I had originally thought. From the article by Crisp & Turner (2007) I question the validity of categorizing people into two boxes: extroverts and introverts. I do not believe that someone is merely one or the other, ticking all the boxes in one category. From this thought, I conducted further research into a ‘scale’ of personalities.

Hill (1987) also discusses discussed the, ‘positive affect or stimulation associated with interpersonal closeness and communication’ (Hill, 1987, p. 1008). However, he introduces four possible specific social rewards that effect ones desire to network in addition to personality type (p. 1008).

• ‘Positive affect or stimulation associated with interpersonal closeness and communication’
• ‘Attention or praise’
• ‘Reduction of negative affect through social contact’
• ‘Social comparison’

I can relate the first two bullet points to my studies and network on the BAPP arts course. Although I have outlined the reasons why I believe that I have encountered barriers to my networking to date, I have experienced the positive affects of Affiliation with other students on the course through the blogs. As an example, yesterday I checked a fellow BAPP member’s blog and I found a video that was very closely linked to my recent line of inquiry. This helped to develop my knowledge about my line of inquiry, and by commenting on this post, I hope to gain further knowledge and learn from the experience through Cooperation and Affiliation. Furthermore, when another student or tutor leaves a positive comment on a post on my blog, which often includes further lines of questioning, this feels like a type of ‘praise’. Someone has recognised the work I have undertaken and found a way to enhance its possibilities, making me feel rewarded and challenged. These reasons have increased my desire to network because I have experienced first hand the positive impact networking can have, relating this to Hill’s (1987) theories.

Social Constructionism

Social Constructionism is a theory that explores how humans perceive the word around us, implying that the ‘meaning is constructed’ (Crotty, 2005, p. 42) and ‘truth is created no discovered by the mind’ (Andrews, 2012, p. 40). Furthermore, Crotty (2005, p. 42) states that Social Constructionism is, ‘constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world’. Moreover, Andrews (2012, p 41) posits that ‘conversation is the most important means of maintaining, modifying and reconstructing subjective reality’. From this statement, it is evident that we make sense of the world by networking with others and further challenge existing views formed by society within those communities. I find it interesting that this is widely how we make sense of the world around us. In this way, networking is crucial for development and I have never before previously thought in this way.

Within my own practices, I can see how a network helps me to make sense of the ‘world’ around me relating to Social Constructionism. In our professional lives we are often left to discover things for ourselves either through trail and error, research, observation or by having a mentor. I feel this was definitely the case when I started my role at the Academy. For example, when I first started teaching drama, I discovered ways of improving the manner in which I brought the group back together as one by trail and improvement; this was a long and frustrating process.  However, I believe that if I would have had a network available to me where, say, a group of NQTs (Newly Qualified Teachers) in drama could discuss and share strategies; I could have ‘made sense’ of this situation earlier and found a better solution to my problem because I would have interacted with others in my same situation in our ‘world’ of teaching drama. Another example is the BAPP. I have found it far easier to complete the coursework through the communication and support of my fellow students and tutors, showing that I am continuing to make sense and almost ‘puzzle through’ the course with the assistance of the blog network (as I’m sure many of us feel is the case!)

Connectivism

Siemens (2004) identifies Connectivism as learning that occurs from connecting with other people. He maintains that in our ever-changing environment, the learning we undertake throughout our education and professional lives should be appropriate for such level of change (Siemens, 2004). Due to these rapid advances in technology, ‘learning now occurs in a variety of ways – through communities of practice, personal networks, and though completion of work related tasks’ (Siemens 2004). He recognizes that along with the growth of online networking, follows an abundance of knowledge (Siemens 2004).

In terms of my own professional networking in my career to date, I can identify the theory of Connectivism in every website. I have gained the understanding from previous course research that using Web 2.0 tools provides the knowledge which matches the current skill set of a 21^st century employee. For me, networks offer the experience and advice from more experienced practitioners, which, as a fairly inexperienced practitioner, enables me to develop as a professional to a higher standard.

Yet Siemens (2004) also poses an interesting argument, because interlinked with this vast amount of knowledge comes the responsibility of the reader to gauge the validity of the information. I completely agree with this statement. Networks are wonderful tools, but I do find that I constantly question the reliability of the information I find, especially in online network. I use face-to-face interaction within my network at school for advice from more experienced practitioners and I know the information I am receiving follows academy policies, matches the level of the group I am teaching and suits the intake of students we have within the school. With an online network I do not always know the people I am collaborating with personally, so I am doubtful at times about how their information can help me.

Overall, I believe that with the economics of employment in the current years, especially in the arts, any amount of information is useful. If I evaluate a piece of information and decide that it is not appropriate for my use, then I have still learnt something because I have questioned why I do not think it is fit for the purpose, still leading to professional development.

‘Connectivism provides insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners to flourish in a digital era’ (Siemens, 2004)

Communities of Practice

Communities of Practice outlines that learning is formed by ‘a set of relations among persons’ with the potential for ‘a intrinsic condition or the existence of knowledge’ that occurs through social interactions and relationships, rather than individuals gaining knowledge from independent learning (Lave and Wegner, 1991. p. 98). Lave and Wegner (1991, p. 100) also state that, ‘the place of knowledge is within the community of practice’. They place huge importance of the cycle of navigational practice which is the theory that a novice joins a community of practice, becoming a full participant, gains knowledge, therefore becomes an experienced practitioner and can pass their knowledge onto new novices (Lave and Wegner, 1991).

Within my own networking experience I can recognise this theory. After the online session of Wednesday with Paula, I realise that undergoing my training at LSC formed one of my Communities of Practice, which I had never previously considered a ‘legitimate’ Community of Practice. As a first year, I was considered a ‘novice’ in my training. I then became part of the ‘ambient community’ within the school and learnt how to become part of that community through participating in my training, attending events and watching third year shows (Lave and Wegner, 1991, p. 100). Throughout this process, I was able to build and gather more knowledge of the performing arts industry, training technique and what was required and expected of an LSC student from the more experienced practitioners around me (second and third year students in addition to my tutors). This was an invaluable tool that I did not fully understand or appreciate at the time. Every training institution is different, therefore becoming a successful practitioner meant I was relying on the president set by more experience practitioners in that community. When I progressed into my second year, I became part of creating that community for first year students.

Yet, the idea of relying on Communities of Practice for our learning and acquisition of knowledge has come under scrutiny from theorist. Firstly, Hughes, Jewson & Urwin (1991, p 20) argue that ‘the use of the term ‘community’ is far from neutral, as it carries connotation of togetherness’. From this, I cannot help but think of Axelrod’s (1884) theory that we cooperate until the full benefit is reached and then we ‘defect’. It is true, that the theory of communities of practice does not take into account the need to defeat the competition. With this is mind, do communities of practice operate purely to build a strong wealth of knowledge collectively, or do they just simply use the people around them to obtain knowledge for personal gain, only contributing in order to get something receive something they desire? Furthermore, Hughes, Jewson & Urwin (2007, p. 20) claim that, ‘‘participation’, on its own, fails to account for how new learning comes about and how knowledge is produced’ therefore leading to ambiguity in this theory, as it does not truly explore how learning is acquire through these communities of practice.

Fuller (2004, p. 24) also states that the idea of a cycle of navigational practice fails to recognize the importance that, ‘all novices are not the same and all experts are not the same’. He poses the theory of ‘learning regions’ whereby there are considerable differences between practitioners and they ways they have gained their knowledge through their experiences. I agree with this theory. For a personal example, an experienced teacher takes up a post at a new school, but considers themselves a novice when they begin this new role. An NQT in the same school, who has completed their teaching training during the previous year at the same school, may consider themselves an expert because they know the systems and policies that exist within the school. But which teacher has the greatest wealth of knowledge? Either teacher, depending on which skills they are being assessed on – knowledge of how the school operates or knowledge of classroom management, subject knowledge and professional relationships. The same applies with an online network.

Ethical Consideration For Networking

Through conducting research into Web 2.0 I believe the dangers associated with networking online are obvious. In the technologically driven work we work in, the ability to maintain a professional online persona that you are happy with is absolutely crucial. Keeping one’s personal and professional lives separate on the internet is challenging but necessary. There are times when I have to know how much to share and what information to reveal on the Internet in order to comply with ethical issues, particularly when working in a school. Knowing what you consider to be ‘ethical’ is vital when networking professionally. For example, I could name the school I work in even if I am not using names of staff or students. But for me, I do not feel this is appropriate and nor do I feel that it is necessary for the people I am cooperating, communicating and sharing with on networking sites to know this information. It does no effect their judgment or their decision making because I can tell them the group size, age and level I am working with, without breaking my own ‘professional rules’.

The most interesting literature I found during my research was Casciaro, Gino & Kouchaki (2014) The Contaminating Effects of Building Instrumental Ties: How Networking Can Make Us Feel Dirty. They identify that professional networking is both accepted and promoted in our 21^st century employment and it can indeed increase exposure and understanding which aid learning (Casciaro, Gino & Kouchaki, 2014). However they argue that, ‘instrumental networking in pursuit of professional goals can impinge on an individual’s moral purity… and thus make an individual feel dirty’ (Casciaro, Gino & Kouchaki, 2014, p. 705). I thought ‘dirty’ was extremely emotive and made me consider my own actions when networking similarly to my thoughts about Cooperation relating to Axelrod and Patternote’s theories. Casciaro, Gino & Kouchaki (2014, p. 705) identify the feeling for a professional’s need to justify themselves because ‘people make inferences about themselves based on their choices and behaviors’. Again they question the selflessness of networking as ‘reciprocity concerns the exchange of any resource to equalize the relationship (Casciaro, Gino & Kouchaki, 2014, p. 709).

Overall

I was daunted at first with this task, however I believe that my research and critical analysis of the theories of networking had provided me with crucial information to help me begin to expand my networking capabilities. I now understand more fully that my innate personality affects my desire and capability to network through Affiliation; yet I do believe that Cooperation is key to continue to develop and improve as a professional in our work places, even if it is for our personal gain ultimately. Fundamentally, Communities of Practice hold the key to our success with networking and Social Constructionism shows that with the appropriate network, meanings can be found and knowledge enhanced. As a result of this, I will now consider my contribution to these networking websites more carefully in order to be the best professional I can be without feeling selfish when networking professionally.

Reference List

Andrews, T. (2012) What is Social Constructionism? In: Grounded Theory Review March 2012 Volume 11. Issues No 1. pp. 39-46

Axelrod, R. (1984) The evolution of cooperation. London: Penguin

Casciaro, T., Gino, F. & Kouchaki, M (2014) The Contaminating Effects of Building Instrumental Ties. How Networking Can Make Us Feel Dirty. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 2012. Volume 59 Issue No. 4. pp 705-753

Crisp, R. J. & Turner, R. N. (2007) Affiliation and attraction Essential In: Social Psychology (2nd ed) London: Sage pp. 322-324

Crotty, M. (2005) The foundations of social research: meaning and perspectives in the research process, London: Sage

Hagner, P. (2004) ‘The conceptualization and measurement of learning at work’ In: Rainbird, H. Fuller, A. & Munro, A. (eds) Workplace Learning in Context London: Routledge pp. 242-258

Hill, C. A. (1987) Affiliation Motivation: People Who Need People… But in Different Ways Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987. Volume 52. Issue No. 5. Pp 1008-1018

Hughes, J., Jewson, N. & Urwin, L. (2007) Communities of Practice: Critical perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.

Investopedia LLC. (2015) Networking [Internet] Available from: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/networking.asp [Accessed on 9 April 2015]

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press

Patternotte, C. (2014) Minimal Cooperation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 2014 Volume 44. Issue No. 1. pp. 45-73

Serendip (2005) Prisoner’s Dilemma [Internet] Available from: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html. [Accessed on 9 April 2015]

Siemens, G. (2004) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm [Accessed 9 April 2015]

Wegner, E (2015) Etienne’s Hompage: Wegner-Trayner [Internet] Available from: http://wenger-trayner.com/etienne/ [Accessed on 12 April 2015]