Open Thinkering

Menu

Month: November 2023

TB872: Communities and networks

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.

DALL-E 3 created abstract image of Communities of Practice (CoP), artistically representing the concepts of collective learning, the evolution of involvement in CoPs, and the 'middle way' between groups and networks within the context of CoPs.

As we near the end of Part 1 of the TB872 module, we encounter something which I could write about all day: Communities of Practice (CoP). I’m going to reference some recent writing I’ve done and workshops we’ve run through WAO, partly to help jog my memory, but also to find again easily should I need it for one of my assessments:

There are other ones, which are more adjacent to this which are more focused on Open Recognition, especially Using Open Recognition to Map Real-World Skills and Attributes (Part 1 / Part 2). I’m surprised that those latter two haven’t had more interest and the ideas in them taken up, but I digress.

Before going any further, it’s worth defining what a CoP actually is:

Communities of practice are formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor: a tribe learning to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of expression, a group of engineers working on similar problems, a clique of pupils defining their identity in the school, a network of surgeons exploring novel techniques, a gathering of first-time managers helping each other cope.

‘Introduction to communities of practice’ (2022), 12 January. Available at: https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice (Accessed: 25 November 2023).

CoPs all have the following:

  • Domain: there has to be a shared identity defined by a commitment to a ‘domain’ of practice. Being a member of the CoP implies some kind of commitment to this domain, as opposed to being a member of a ‘network’. Being part of the domain doesn’t necessarily confer ‘expertise’ but rather what Wenger and Traynor call a “collective competence”.
  • Community: somewhat obviously, a CoP has to have members which engage with one another with the domain. They talk with one another, sharing information, helping each other, and (crucially) they actually care about their relationships with one another. Sometimes drawing a boundary around a CoP is difficult, because it’s not based on job title, or visiting the same online forum as someone else; a CoP depends on interaction and learning. Even if the actual practice that people do is solitary (e.g. hiking long-distance trails) there can still be a vibrant CoP around it.
  • Practice: the ‘practice’ is what the members of the community actually talk about and help each other with. This goes beyond a community of ‘interest’, as members of a CoP are practitioners. They are not merely people who all like the same things. For example, the Taylor Swift fandom could be a Community of Interest, but if they start actually doing stuff together (e.g. collecting memorabilia, creating a database of performances) then they may start edging into a CoP. The important thing isn’t necessarily that people realise that they’re engaging in a practice within a community in a given domain — I’ve been part of lunchtime discussions in staff rooms as a teacher which could be considered a CoP.

The course materials ask us to reflect on our experiences of being part of communities as opposed to networks. One image that’s stuck with me since 2006 is from Stephen Downes, who drew out the following at a conference in Auckland to illustrate a point he was making:

Photograph of whiteboard with black and red pen, sketching out the difference between a group and a network.
‘Groups and networks’ (25 September 2006). Available at: https://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=35866 (Accessed: 25 November 2023).

This was very much the Web 2.0 era, and the very next day he followed up with a post reflecting on the pushback he’d got from some quarters:

It took exactly 24 hours for someone to propose a “middle way” (this is what passes for innovation these days). “Could there be “middle way” or “third way”? Something that would be between the ‘closed groups’ and ‘individuals in open networks’?”

It will soon be noticed that a person can be both an individual (and hence a member of a network) and a member of a group. That they can belong to many networks and many groups. That any number of ‘middle ways’ can be derived from variations on this theme.

[…]

The core of the issue is whether learning in general should be based on groups or networks. Everybody says, ‘learning is social’, and thus (no?) must be conducted in groups. But networks, too, are social. Learning can be social and not conducted in groups. Where to now, social construction?

The reason I share this here, other than the fact that Stephen has been a critical friend to my work for almost two decades, is that one could see the concept of a CoP as a ‘middle way’ between a group and a network. That is to say, there is a boundary, so it is group-ish. But it depends on people interacting with their full identity, rather than being subsumed into the group, and therefore is network-ish.

The assignment that I’m responding to in this post asks me to:

Review your own experiences of communities and networks in relation to your practices and plot them in some way, possibly using a timeline or a spray diagram. Discuss with others, possibly on the module discussion forum, whether and how these groups have been important to you in helping you improve your practices. If networks and communities have not been a significant part of your experience or if you do not consider them important to your practice, consider whether increased involvement and networks is desirable or feasible in relation to your practice.

As I’ve known for 15 years, the way my brain is wired not only means I get migraines, but I also am mildly synaesthetic. In my case, this means that I see time very visually, which, I understand from talking with other people, isn’t “normal”. I see it as a bit of a superpower, being able to zoom into different periods of history. It’s not that I get to choose how to represent it, that’s just how my brain works.

All of this is by introduction to my timeline of the CoPs to which I think I’ve belonged. The timeline is how I see the period from about 2000 to now, in my head. For some reason there’s always a ‘turn’ at the end of a decade. I’m never sure why it goes the direction it does. As my wife says, I’m weird.

(tap to enlarge)

It’s important to note that this is meant to be in some way three-dimensional. There are no ‘peaks and troughs’. I could have spent longer on this to try and get the colours to overlap and interact with one another, but life is short.

I’m currently a member of the Open Education is for Everybody (ORE) and we’re currently working on an Open Recognition Toolkit (ORT) to be launched at ePIC 2023. This is what CoPs do: they come together to talk, share information, and create resources. By doing this, members encourage one another.

Reflecting on my membership of different communities, I turned from a lurker into an active community member due to the specific invitation of someone to start posting on the School History discussion forum. That was a revelation to me, as I then had a community beyond the walls of the school in which I was working. It transformed my practice, and the ‘audience’ for the work I was doing went beyond the stakeholders of my organisation (a school) and into the wider world.

Likewise, this set the scene for sharing my work openly on my blog and via Twitter, which is the best CoP I’ve ever been part of. It’s easy to consider social networks to be, well, networks but they can foster people coalescing around hashtags, and around practices such as online chats on particular topics at certain times. There’s a boundary that can be drawn around the practice.

My volunteering for Mozilla led to being employed to them. I still go along to MozFest and would consider myself a ‘Mozillian’ which, I guess, is part of a community identity — even if it has changed quite a lot over time. One of the most fulfilling communities I’ve been part of has been the Open Badges community which has morphed into Open Recognition when ‘microcredentialing’ sucked the life out of the original vibe.

And then, of course, there’s We Are Open, the cooperative I co-founded with friends and former colleagues in 2016. This has been a wonderfully sustaining organisation for me, starting off as a part-time thing, and then evolving into something I do ‘full time’ (for some definitions of ‘full’). This is very much a community of practice as we work together on a daily basis, evolving what we do as we learn from each other, our reading, and our work.

In closing, I’d note that the CoPs I’ve been involved in have had a ‘boundary’. That’s what gives them the domain of practice. Membership has been clear, as has (usually) what we’re working on. What CoPs do, in my experience, even if I haven’t always realised I’ve been part of one, is elevate my aspirations and interest in my practice. They’ve stimulated and encouraged me to go further in the work that I do, knowing that I’ve got an audience for the things that I find frustrating or fascinating.

I’m looking forward to being part of a Systems Thinking CoP. I guess the TB872 module is one, although I don’t feel very connected to fellow students yet. Perhaps I should post more in the forum.

Top image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS)

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.

DALL-E 3 created abstract image in 16:9 format, capturing the essence of Richard Bawden's Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS) in the context of Australian farming. This visualization artistically blends elements of systems thinking with agricultural themes, emphasizing the real-world application of CSLS in sustainable farming practices.

This module loves a good acronym, and the latest I’m being introduced to is Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS). Let’s just pause to consider what each of those mean to me in my usual context:

  • Critical: people call me pretty ‘critical’ by which I think they mean harsh. However, I use the term either to mean something extremely important (“it’s critical than you get this done!”) or in the sense of critique (“there were some good points in what we did, but let’s reflect on what could have gone better, based on this framework”)
  • Social: the opposite of ‘individual’, doing something with others — for example, learning, playing, or conversing. You can be social in a physical group situation, online if you’re in a meeting or gaming session, but also through the sending and receiving of letters. I’m not going to get into the philosophical question of whether to be ‘social’ something has to be reciprocated (e.g. “am I being ‘social’ when responding to something that Plato wrote?”)
  • Learning: an extremely difficult term to pin down, much like the Wittgensteinian notion of a ‘game’. But, for me, it’s something to do with development, with adaptation, and (to quote Stephen Downes) recognition.
  • Systems: this is the hardest thing for me to define, after ‘learning’ as a ‘system’ could be anything. You could have a system of note-taking, or a water system in your house, or a system for getting reproducible builds when developing software. Now that I’ve reflected on the word I’m actually less sure how to define it!

I found the examples in the course materials interesting in terms of farming in Australia, but they didn’t particularly help me in understanding Richard Bawden’s conception of a CSLS. So I turned, as ever, to my trusty robot friend, ChatGPT. It gave a load of information, so I asked it to summarise it all more concisely:

Richard Bawden’s work on Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS) integrates systems thinking with critical reflection in addressing complex social and environmental issues, particularly in agriculture. Key elements include:

  • Critical Reflection: Emphasises questioning underlying assumptions in learning processes.
  • Systems Approach: Recognises the complexity and interconnectivity in social and ecological issues.
  • Participatory Methods: Advocates stakeholder involvement in learning and decision-making.
  • Adaptive Management: Focuses on flexible strategies for dynamic systems.

Applied mainly in sustainable agriculture, Bawden’s CSLS promotes transformative and interdisciplinary learning, especially in higher education, to foster a systemic understanding of real-world problems. His work has significantly contributed to expanding the scope and applicability of systems thinking in ecological and educational contexts.

My understanding based on this is that Bawden is important to the development of Systems Thinking as he integrated critical reflection and participatory approaches. This has made Systems Thinking as a whole more applicable to complex social and ecological issues.

So, let’s imagine I’ve been working with colleagues and considering an appropriate response to a situation we had been looking at together. For the sake of using what I understand about the CSLS approach so far, we’d have to:

  1. Understand the situation: always the first thing to do with a Systems Thinking approach! Getting an appreciation of what’s actually going on, from multiple points of view, is never as easy as it sounds.
  2. Get relevant people involved: some might call this ‘stakeholder engagement’, but either way includes anyone directly affected, as well as anyone who makes decisions about the situation, and people with expertise.
  3. Encourage critical reflection: going back to the definition of ‘critical’ above, different people have different ways of understanding, and so listening to them talk about the situation will reveal not only systemic barriers, but any hidden biases.
  4. Do some system mapping: using diagrams, the Systems Thinker’s favourite thing, the next thing to do is to map out the connections between various aspects of the situation. This might include feedback loops and agreeing on a boundary to what’s being discussed.
  5. Develop a shared understanding: I haven’t got to it yet as part of this module, but I think this is where the P(P(PFMS)) approach comes in: deciding together to use specific frameworks and methods in regards to a situation.
  6. Explore solutions: once we’ve got a shared approach, we’d need a flexible way of dealing with the situation, understanding that in complex systems, things can change often (and quickly!)
  7. Document what we’ve learned: by working openly and sharing both the process and what we’ve discovered, we’re likely to get more people onboard and contribute to better knowledge and understanding of the situation.

I purposely haven’t talked about things like implementation and monitoring here, because within a week it’s quite unlikely that you’d be able to fit that into this cycle. But once you’ve started making a change in a system, I guess a period of ongoing learning and adaptation started.

One thing I’ve learned is that you shouldn’t assume just because there’s a shared understanding at one point in time, that this will last. People change, the organisations they work for change, and people move in and out of roles. In fact, I’d say that the single biggest barrier to positive system change in some sectors I’ve worked in has been the turnover of staff within organisations.

I’ve still a lot more to learn about CSLS, but it’s already evident that the approach is inherently practical, being based on Bawden’s work with Australian farmers. As such, it’s not just theoretical but deeply relevant to real-world challenges. What I like about it is that CSLS doesn’t shy away from complexity, embracing and valuing diverse perspectives, and recognising the need for continuous learning and adaptation. I can definitely imagine using this approach in some of my work, going forward.

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Mapping prior experience of ‘learning systems’

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.

(tap on image to enlarge)

The time estimates for other activities I’ve done as part of this module have almost been laughable; it took me almost two hours to do a 20 minute task the other day. Perhaps I’m over-doing it.

However, this task took less than the suggested 20 minutes. Using Kumu, I created the above diagram (is it a ‘spray diagram’, I’m not sure) using the ‘Big Data’ template.

What does the concept of learning system mean to you?

Start to develop your own spray diagram of authors who have written about learning systems, indicating where their ideas have come from. If you are familiar with any other authors’ work of relevance to learning systems include these authors also. I suggest you complete this activity at a fairly superficial level at this stage and you can revisit it after you have read some more of the authors’ work.

I used ChatGPT to come up with ideas to add to this diagram. I’m not over-thinking it. I see it as a base to add things to as the module progresses.

css.php