Continuing from the last post, I've been considering some of the ideas from Howard Greenstein's podcast in which I participated with Nicole Lazzaro. We produced it at a think tank retreat a few weeks ago to flesh out some of the ideas that were presented briefly and with lightening speed. This happened all weekend, as these things tend to do when a group of smart people get together, hardly ever see each other, and have their say or test out their work.
About the Podcast
The podcast itself is not optimal -- we worked outside where the background activity sounds much more fun than the conversation. However, Nicole raised a few points that are worth pulling out and discussing further. One is the question, value, and nature of jargon raised by some of her naming conventions (covered before -- start here and scroll up).
The other is the meaning created in gaming when players are together in the same space. Jane McGonigal works brilliantly on this, but there's more to say, particularly in the context of games restricted to the computer screen.
Whatchamacallit?
Nicole and I spoke briefly on the phone about a challenge she's facing naming a group of emotional responses to gaming when more than one person is present. This class of responses fascinates me because it links performance online with that off-line.
In other words, how can content producers take advantage of performance online in a way that is unique to the Web and still incorporate the benefits from other media in that offer a rich relationship between audience and performance?
Most of all, theater comes to mind.
More Jargon: Words from Other Languages to Enrich Our Own
Back to the podcast: Nicole mentioned that there is a completely different quality to responses when gamers are playing in the same room. She said that the room becomes the game space, and the computer screen shrinks into the corner.
So this is what I came up with as a first shot -- to help describe this phenomenon:
Convocare -- The class of feelings that occur when one person or more joins another in the same space. These emotional responses require more than one personto be present body, not just in the abstract.
They include, among others, a sense of independence from, connection to, superiority over, competitiveness with, inferiority to, isolated from another. The key is that all feelings occur in relationship.
The convocare class of feelings can be broken down into other emotional responses (some listed above), each with its own precise description.
A Funny Thing Happens to Naming (But Not Necessarily Ha Ha)
Very few people would dispute that inspiration is the meeting point of emotional and intellectual insight. I know this because in over 20 years of educating professionals and young students, no one ever has.
However, at a certain point in our development as Westerners (the point depends on the culture), our cognitive intelligence is considered to be entirely independent of our intellectual capacity. This can happen in school or at home -- adults stop asking students how they feel about something and instead ask what they think. No one would ever do this to a four-year-old because it's impossible to conceive that the two pieces are separate.
The implications of using only half your brain effect people of every age, in every profession.
What's In a Name?
Only when we get down to a level of verbal precision equal with that of other cognitive research will emotional responses be integrated into the mix of cognition, even when the brain isn't mentioned.
Empathy
Paula Vogel, my mentor in a past life of live theater and academic discourse (not necessarily together), has described empathy as a chemical reaction between bodies. There certainly is a different kind of experience in the live theater than in any other performance medium, and probably physical chemistry contributes.
However, there's more to it, and the Web will only benefit as we explore the relationship between audience and performance online.
Nicole is definitely on the right track.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
Jargon as a Solution: Could it Work?
Continuing from the last post, Nicole Lazzaro and I met in Virginia with a diverse group of very bright people to discuss a range of topics that interested us all.
I decided, quite against type, that there is a place for jargon.
Why This Surprised Me
As anyone who reads this blog regularly knows, I believe that jargon is unnecessary for understanding and, in fact, divisive. Jargon both creates and reinforces silos among disciplines and thinking people. The use of jargon keeps those on the inside in a position of authority, even if those on the outside know just as much, or more. It's a weapon in a larger power game that includes in intellectual, economic, and social politics and power struggles -- either all together, or one at a time.
The "Aha" Moment
Nicole uses English terms except for the word "Fiero" for the feeling of winning after a long struggle in a computer game. The word, she said, "Sounds like what it is -- F-I-E-R-O," she said stressing the "r's." A great breath of pride and relief. A thrilling sense of accomplishment. It's a perfect word for what Nicole was looking to describe.
Why Jargon Can Be Useful
I suggested to Nicole that the words she uses as technical landmarks in a game's progression -- "emotions," "amusement," "anger," and so on -- don't have the credibility to a business audience or the specificity of a word like "fierro."
"Fierro" is specific to her project, and it's unfamiliar to an audience that tends to dismiss emotional response as either weakness or a lack of credibility in intellectual ability. It's not just business people who dismiss emotional reactions as such. Teachers, particularly of older children -- certainly in university -- will have none of it expressed in what are valued as intellectual arguments defending a position.
Jargon solves this problem. Generally, it serves to distance the raw immediacy of feeling from a discussion by disassociating an emotion from a response. This works for two reasons:
First, credibility today lies with the Johnsonian’s and Cartesians rather than the Romantics, Swift, Sterne, and the "men" of sensibility. In other words, we behave as thought the head operates entirely without the emotional system.
Second, jargon obfuscates the feeling state for professional reasons. In a time when assumptions about thinking have become habit, it keeps everyone comfortable and makes the response credible.
Nicole has said (quite rightly) when dealing with the familiar, "It is much more powerful to use a new word. It grabs attention and . . . cuts one free of associations from a previous word. Such mental baggage gets in the way of the new conversation."
Without the Nasty Side-Effects: Optimizing the Benefits of Jargon
I like "fierro" because the word means what it says onomatopoetically. It also genuinely means what Nicole wants to express, albeit in another language. The combination to me makes jargon acceptable. First, words like this are accessible to everyone through sound and feeling. Second, if that isn't effective, you can find the meaning by looking to cultures outside the business world and find overtones not available in your own language.
This is jargon that enhances, rather than reduces, meaning. It also derives from everyday language without abusing it. Why transform "construction" into "construct" when they mean the same thing? Why invent a word when there are plenty of wonderful options already in existence? The only effect is to alienate those who are not familiar with the jargon.
In a larger sense, if language of a particular field has lost its power to persuade -- such as those associated with emotional reactions -- why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not instead, like Nicole, create connections -- among cultures and languages -- to rehabilitate importance concepts?
Next Steps
Nicole and I are going to work together to consider the emotional language of gaming research. If we can energize it, the effort can only offer support to other fields suffering from a lack of credibility in an environment hostile to arguments that include feeling.
Any suggestions are most welcome.
I decided, quite against type, that there is a place for jargon.
Why This Surprised Me
As anyone who reads this blog regularly knows, I believe that jargon is unnecessary for understanding and, in fact, divisive. Jargon both creates and reinforces silos among disciplines and thinking people. The use of jargon keeps those on the inside in a position of authority, even if those on the outside know just as much, or more. It's a weapon in a larger power game that includes in intellectual, economic, and social politics and power struggles -- either all together, or one at a time.
The "Aha" Moment
Nicole uses English terms except for the word "Fiero" for the feeling of winning after a long struggle in a computer game. The word, she said, "Sounds like what it is -- F-I-E-R-O," she said stressing the "r's." A great breath of pride and relief. A thrilling sense of accomplishment. It's a perfect word for what Nicole was looking to describe.
Why Jargon Can Be Useful
I suggested to Nicole that the words she uses as technical landmarks in a game's progression -- "emotions," "amusement," "anger," and so on -- don't have the credibility to a business audience or the specificity of a word like "fierro."
"Fierro" is specific to her project, and it's unfamiliar to an audience that tends to dismiss emotional response as either weakness or a lack of credibility in intellectual ability. It's not just business people who dismiss emotional reactions as such. Teachers, particularly of older children -- certainly in university -- will have none of it expressed in what are valued as intellectual arguments defending a position.
Jargon solves this problem. Generally, it serves to distance the raw immediacy of feeling from a discussion by disassociating an emotion from a response. This works for two reasons:
First, credibility today lies with the Johnsonian’s and Cartesians rather than the Romantics, Swift, Sterne, and the "men" of sensibility. In other words, we behave as thought the head operates entirely without the emotional system.
Second, jargon obfuscates the feeling state for professional reasons. In a time when assumptions about thinking have become habit, it keeps everyone comfortable and makes the response credible.
Nicole has said (quite rightly) when dealing with the familiar, "It is much more powerful to use a new word. It grabs attention and . . . cuts one free of associations from a previous word. Such mental baggage gets in the way of the new conversation."
Without the Nasty Side-Effects: Optimizing the Benefits of Jargon
I like "fierro" because the word means what it says onomatopoetically. It also genuinely means what Nicole wants to express, albeit in another language. The combination to me makes jargon acceptable. First, words like this are accessible to everyone through sound and feeling. Second, if that isn't effective, you can find the meaning by looking to cultures outside the business world and find overtones not available in your own language.
This is jargon that enhances, rather than reduces, meaning. It also derives from everyday language without abusing it. Why transform "construction" into "construct" when they mean the same thing? Why invent a word when there are plenty of wonderful options already in existence? The only effect is to alienate those who are not familiar with the jargon.
In a larger sense, if language of a particular field has lost its power to persuade -- such as those associated with emotional reactions -- why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not instead, like Nicole, create connections -- among cultures and languages -- to rehabilitate importance concepts?
Next Steps
Nicole and I are going to work together to consider the emotional language of gaming research. If we can energize it, the effort can only offer support to other fields suffering from a lack of credibility in an environment hostile to arguments that include feeling.
Any suggestions are most welcome.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Jargon and Emotional Response in Learning
The situation
I was at a meeting last weekend with tremendously bright people who were all in different fields. We all had in common, it seemed, both a desire to improve communication through technology and a proclivity for considering various social network tools as the means to do this.
The Issue
As discussed previously, all good teachers succeeed by provoking with a combination of emotional and intellectual bait. However, as Sir Ken Robinson remarked at TED, you'd probably not see a teacher in a gathering that includes the kind of professionals gathered last weekend.
Then I met Nicole Lazzaro. She focuses on games and the specific ways that they engage (or don't) through emotional response. I was intrigued by her repeated reference to the importance of feeling states to learning, not least because she is the first person to do so in a business-oriented meeting.
Surprised at My Own Reaction
Despite the fact that a consideration of emotion is perhaps the most neglected aspect of learning outside a classroom (and even inside some classrooms of older children), I found that I flinched each time Nicole connected to business the words "emotions," "amusement," or other generic terms for what we feel. On the other hand, everything she said was fascinating.
So I asked her to meet me outside. We did a podcast on the subject of games and emotions with Howard Greenstein.
Language and Feeling
During the podcast, Howard and I asked Nicole to define the myriad emotions, the desired proportions, and the optimal timing of each to create successful games. Nicole continued to use words like "amusing" (here, "funny"), and I questioned the specific meaning of each because they are all everyday words that have a variety of connotations. For example, all games have been referred to as "amusing" if one considers games to be "amusements."
Nicole has done a lot of hard core research on the brain and emotional reactions. She is an impressive thinker, and the success of her work attests to her long experience and real knowledge of both human behavior and the most current science that explains it.
However, the language she uses still doesn't have the same credibility to me. THAT, I realized, was the reason I flinched in the meeting when she spoke. There is already enough dismissing of feeling-based reactions in learning. Here was a scholar and fascinating thinker who could change all that through the game business. Yet the language still wasn't as strong in a business context as the business itself.
More in the next post.
I was at a meeting last weekend with tremendously bright people who were all in different fields. We all had in common, it seemed, both a desire to improve communication through technology and a proclivity for considering various social network tools as the means to do this.
The Issue
As discussed previously, all good teachers succeeed by provoking with a combination of emotional and intellectual bait. However, as Sir Ken Robinson remarked at TED, you'd probably not see a teacher in a gathering that includes the kind of professionals gathered last weekend.
Then I met Nicole Lazzaro. She focuses on games and the specific ways that they engage (or don't) through emotional response. I was intrigued by her repeated reference to the importance of feeling states to learning, not least because she is the first person to do so in a business-oriented meeting.
Surprised at My Own Reaction
Despite the fact that a consideration of emotion is perhaps the most neglected aspect of learning outside a classroom (and even inside some classrooms of older children), I found that I flinched each time Nicole connected to business the words "emotions," "amusement," or other generic terms for what we feel. On the other hand, everything she said was fascinating.
So I asked her to meet me outside. We did a podcast on the subject of games and emotions with Howard Greenstein.
Language and Feeling
During the podcast, Howard and I asked Nicole to define the myriad emotions, the desired proportions, and the optimal timing of each to create successful games. Nicole continued to use words like "amusing" (here, "funny"), and I questioned the specific meaning of each because they are all everyday words that have a variety of connotations. For example, all games have been referred to as "amusing" if one considers games to be "amusements."
Nicole has done a lot of hard core research on the brain and emotional reactions. She is an impressive thinker, and the success of her work attests to her long experience and real knowledge of both human behavior and the most current science that explains it.
However, the language she uses still doesn't have the same credibility to me. THAT, I realized, was the reason I flinched in the meeting when she spoke. There is already enough dismissing of feeling-based reactions in learning. Here was a scholar and fascinating thinker who could change all that through the game business. Yet the language still wasn't as strong in a business context as the business itself.
More in the next post.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Conversations with Valdis: Part 4
Continuing from the last post, Valdis Krebs talks more about his process for social network analysis. Here he explains more about some of the metrics.
Centrality
Valdis explains that centrality metrics include scores for "degrees" and "betweeness." "Degrees" tells you the number of steps that one person would have to take to connect to someone else. "This measure tells you the least about what's going on in a network," says Valdis, "but it is a simple way of measuring activity. If I have 10 connections, and you have two, it means that I am more active in the network. Unfortunately, this is not particularly valuable information on its own."
Betweeness
Betweenness is a measure that can be the most revealing about the largest number of issues. Valdis says, "It uncovers the role of connector that Gladwell talked about. If you have a high "betweeness" score, you're connecting parts of the network that wouldn't be connected otherwise.
Someone with such a score can be a broker and very valuable to the network. On the other hand, if brokering is too much work, he or she can be a bottleneck and detrimental to the network.
Brokers have a lot of power and control over what flows within the network because everyone has to go through them. It can be a good thing -- helpful -- or a bad thing -- misuse power or if you quit, the company's screwed for information flow."
Closeness
Closeness measures "how close is one node to all other nodes -- how quickly can this node reach other nodes in the minimum number of steps. People talk about six degrees of separation. There really are only two that are valuable -- three at the most." Valdis gave an excellent example of this in our first conversation.
Power
Valdis created a new metric to help the others make more sense as a group. "The last metric is Power -- a combination of Betweenness and Closeness. do you have quick have quick access to everyone else, and does you need anyone else -=- location, location, location -- in real estate, the value is geographical -- want to be at a good intersection, near good schools, good neighborthood, etc.
Valdis concluded, "In the network, it's about who you're connected to and who they're connected to that measures your power. Access plus control."
Centrality
Valdis explains that centrality metrics include scores for "degrees" and "betweeness." "Degrees" tells you the number of steps that one person would have to take to connect to someone else. "This measure tells you the least about what's going on in a network," says Valdis, "but it is a simple way of measuring activity. If I have 10 connections, and you have two, it means that I am more active in the network. Unfortunately, this is not particularly valuable information on its own."
Betweeness
Betweenness is a measure that can be the most revealing about the largest number of issues. Valdis says, "It uncovers the role of connector that Gladwell talked about. If you have a high "betweeness" score, you're connecting parts of the network that wouldn't be connected otherwise.
Someone with such a score can be a broker and very valuable to the network. On the other hand, if brokering is too much work, he or she can be a bottleneck and detrimental to the network.
Brokers have a lot of power and control over what flows within the network because everyone has to go through them. It can be a good thing -- helpful -- or a bad thing -- misuse power or if you quit, the company's screwed for information flow."
Closeness
Closeness measures "how close is one node to all other nodes -- how quickly can this node reach other nodes in the minimum number of steps. People talk about six degrees of separation. There really are only two that are valuable -- three at the most." Valdis gave an excellent example of this in our first conversation.
Power
Valdis created a new metric to help the others make more sense as a group. "The last metric is Power -- a combination of Betweenness and Closeness. do you have quick have quick access to everyone else, and does you need anyone else -=- location, location, location -- in real estate, the value is geographical -- want to be at a good intersection, near good schools, good neighborthood, etc.
Valdis concluded, "In the network, it's about who you're connected to and who they're connected to that measures your power. Access plus control."
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Conversations with Valdis: Part 3
Continuing from the last post, Valdis Krebs talks more about his process for social network analysis. Here he explains more about the group on which he focuses.
Centrality
Valdis explains that centrality metrics include scores for "degrees" and "betweeness." "Degrees" tells you the number of steps that one person would have to take to connect to someone else. "This measure tells you the least about what's going on in a network," says Valdis, "but it is a simple way of measuring activity. If I have 10 connections, and you have two, it means that I am more active in the network. Unfortunately, this is not particularly valuable information on its own."
Betweeness
Betweenness is a measure that can be the most revealing about the largest number of issues. Valdis says, "It uncovers the role of connector that Gladwell talked about. If you have a high "betweeness" score, you're connecting parts of the network that wouldn't be connected otherwise.
Someone with such a score can be a broker and very valuable to the network. On the other hand, if brokering is too much work, he or she can be a bottleneck and detrimental to the network.
Brokers have a lot of power and control over what flows within the network because everyone has to go through them. It can be a good thing -- helpful -- or a bad thing -- misuse power or if you quit, the company's screwed for information flow."
Closeness
Closeness measures "how close is one node to all other nodes -- how quickly can this node reach other nodes in the minimum number of steps. People talk about six degrees of separation. There really are only two that are valuable -- three at the most." Valdis gave an excellent example of this in our first conversation.
Power
Valdis created a new metric to help the others make more sense as a group. "The last metric is Power -- a combination of Betweenness and Closeness. do you have quick have quick access to everyone else, and does you need anyone else -=- location, location, location -- in real estate, the value is geographical -- want to be at a good intersection, near good schools, good neighborthood, etc.
Valdis concluded, "In the network, it's about who you're connected to and who they're connected to that measures your power. Access plus control."
Centrality
Valdis explains that centrality metrics include scores for "degrees" and "betweeness." "Degrees" tells you the number of steps that one person would have to take to connect to someone else. "This measure tells you the least about what's going on in a network," says Valdis, "but it is a simple way of measuring activity. If I have 10 connections, and you have two, it means that I am more active in the network. Unfortunately, this is not particularly valuable information on its own."
Betweeness
Betweenness is a measure that can be the most revealing about the largest number of issues. Valdis says, "It uncovers the role of connector that Gladwell talked about. If you have a high "betweeness" score, you're connecting parts of the network that wouldn't be connected otherwise.
Someone with such a score can be a broker and very valuable to the network. On the other hand, if brokering is too much work, he or she can be a bottleneck and detrimental to the network.
Brokers have a lot of power and control over what flows within the network because everyone has to go through them. It can be a good thing -- helpful -- or a bad thing -- misuse power or if you quit, the company's screwed for information flow."
Closeness
Closeness measures "how close is one node to all other nodes -- how quickly can this node reach other nodes in the minimum number of steps. People talk about six degrees of separation. There really are only two that are valuable -- three at the most." Valdis gave an excellent example of this in our first conversation.
Power
Valdis created a new metric to help the others make more sense as a group. "The last metric is Power -- a combination of Betweenness and Closeness. do you have quick have quick access to everyone else, and does you need anyone else -=- location, location, location -- in real estate, the value is geographical -- want to be at a good intersection, near good schools, good neighborthood, etc.
Valdis concluded, "In the network, it's about who you're connected to and who they're connected to that measures your power. Access plus control."
Conversations with Valdis Part 2: Measuring Social Networks
Talking to Valdis
To continue from a previous post, Valdis Krebs uses a software called Inflow to analyse networks -- within companies, among civic groups, among geographical locations -- you name it, and Valdis will often find a network component important to everyday functioning.
Valdis has been doing this for over twenty years -- much longer than the term social network has been in common usage. It's not a gimmick. It's a very smart approach to identify areas that until now have been considered intangibles.
What Inflow Measures (and Why)
Valdis designed Inflow to identify "the most popular social metrics." "We tend to focus on centrality -- how central is a node in the network and how centralized is the network as a whole."
There's reachability which Valdis explains as something that factors in awareness. "It's what the sociologists call prestige," Valdis said. "But Google uses similar metric for page ranks -- in other words, who's pointing to your web page and who's pointing to those who are pointing to your website. So you have to think broadly about it as well as narrowly."
Some metrics can be seen in cluster analysis. This process identifies which nodes are more closely connected to each other than they are to the rest of the network.
"There are small world networks, althought this is more popular with academics than with business people.
"You can also talk about structural equlivalence that show which nodes in the same network have the same connections. If you and I have the same connections, we are structurally equivalent. That could be good news -- we can act as substitutes for each other.
On the other hand, Valdis adds, "It can also be bad news because we're both fighting for the same resources, satisfy the same customers, or when it comes down to reduce the network, one of us can be let go.
People who are structurally equivalent and don't know each other often find themselves in conflict. So network analysis can often identify why people don't get along in ways that are not personal, and something can be done about it."
More on Valdis and measuring networks in the next post.
To continue from a previous post, Valdis Krebs uses a software called Inflow to analyse networks -- within companies, among civic groups, among geographical locations -- you name it, and Valdis will often find a network component important to everyday functioning.
Valdis has been doing this for over twenty years -- much longer than the term social network has been in common usage. It's not a gimmick. It's a very smart approach to identify areas that until now have been considered intangibles.
What Inflow Measures (and Why)
Valdis designed Inflow to identify "the most popular social metrics." "We tend to focus on centrality -- how central is a node in the network and how centralized is the network as a whole."
There's reachability which Valdis explains as something that factors in awareness. "It's what the sociologists call prestige," Valdis said. "But Google uses similar metric for page ranks -- in other words, who's pointing to your web page and who's pointing to those who are pointing to your website. So you have to think broadly about it as well as narrowly."
Some metrics can be seen in cluster analysis. This process identifies which nodes are more closely connected to each other than they are to the rest of the network.
"There are small world networks, althought this is more popular with academics than with business people.
"You can also talk about structural equlivalence that show which nodes in the same network have the same connections. If you and I have the same connections, we are structurally equivalent. That could be good news -- we can act as substitutes for each other.
On the other hand, Valdis adds, "It can also be bad news because we're both fighting for the same resources, satisfy the same customers, or when it comes down to reduce the network, one of us can be let go.
People who are structurally equivalent and don't know each other often find themselves in conflict. So network analysis can often identify why people don't get along in ways that are not personal, and something can be done about it."
More on Valdis and measuring networks in the next post.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Power of Groups to Strengthen the Indvidual
Continuing fromt the last post on the power of groups, social networking in schools is usually discussed in terms of the stuff students pass to each other via cell phone or IM.
But there's (always) more.
Groups: Do They Squelch the Individual?
Nancy White posted recently arguments for and against the potenital of groups to galvanize individual opinion and expression. She cites Konrad Glogowski whose classroom work resulted in reducing a collection of unique voices to what he calls "the lowest common denominator."
Nancy argues that within organizations, she has seen that listening within a group can be an empowering experience. I agree, and I would add the same goes for the classroom when exercises are organized to support this kind of work.
The Classroom: Why It Works
Both at Brown University and in the South Bronx with middle school kids, I found that group work offered a kind of mirrioring experience for each member. Uncertainty about competence is often more obvious with teenagers than with adults, however, in new situations, everyone could use some support.
In fact, I found that when engaged in new activities -- or in old activities never before done with others -- many students have come out of their (individual) shells to such an extent that the transformation makes them almost unrecognizable.
The key, as Nancy points out, is listening. Students who feel heard and supported, regardless of weaknesses in writing or argument that are also discussed in these situations, find a new way of seeing themselves through others.
The right kind of mirroring makes good parenting. It's not surprising that it's also excellent way to learn.
If anyone wants some tips on how to make this work, please feel free to drop a line. Designing these situations correctly is essential for success.
But there's (always) more.
Groups: Do They Squelch the Individual?
Nancy White posted recently arguments for and against the potenital of groups to galvanize individual opinion and expression. She cites Konrad Glogowski whose classroom work resulted in reducing a collection of unique voices to what he calls "the lowest common denominator."
Nancy argues that within organizations, she has seen that listening within a group can be an empowering experience. I agree, and I would add the same goes for the classroom when exercises are organized to support this kind of work.
The Classroom: Why It Works
Both at Brown University and in the South Bronx with middle school kids, I found that group work offered a kind of mirrioring experience for each member. Uncertainty about competence is often more obvious with teenagers than with adults, however, in new situations, everyone could use some support.
In fact, I found that when engaged in new activities -- or in old activities never before done with others -- many students have come out of their (individual) shells to such an extent that the transformation makes them almost unrecognizable.
The key, as Nancy points out, is listening. Students who feel heard and supported, regardless of weaknesses in writing or argument that are also discussed in these situations, find a new way of seeing themselves through others.
The right kind of mirroring makes good parenting. It's not surprising that it's also excellent way to learn.
If anyone wants some tips on how to make this work, please feel free to drop a line. Designing these situations correctly is essential for success.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
A Master of SNA: Valdis Krebs
Continuing from the last few posts, it seems increasingly useful to unravel the full range of value and processes within social network analysis. The applications and contexts in which SNA can add insight seem to be multiplying every day. And still, there is so much more that will probably emerge through informed experimentation.
Inflow and Valdis Krebs
I was lucky enough to be trained for three days by Valdis Krebs who has been working in this field for twenty years.
In addition to years of experience across a variety of organizational models, Valdis has a remarkable talent for clarifying through anecdotes even the most complex concepts and abstract principles. He designed the Inflow software to untangle confusion with the same sort of power.
Exceptional Course Design
Without a doubt, Valdis is one of the best teachers I've encountered -- and that includes my time at Bryn Mawr and working toward my PhD at Brown. Beyond standard training, this course supports and demands learning and problem-solving that go beyond the parameters of any particular task.
What Does SNA Promise?
As firmly as Valdis believes network analysis can help organizations with everyday challenges, he is also quick to add that network issues comprise only one part of a bigger picture. Both the analyses and subsequent solutions only offer potential. The rest must be accomplished by those in the network with the right kind of support from the organization's leadership.
He indicated that this kind of analysis works best for organizations when looking at people at manager-level and above in the heirarchy. These are the networks and sections of the overall organizational flow that hold the greatest potential to improve flow of information.
What Parts of the Network Should Be Measured?
Valdis began by indicating that there is value for networks when an individual requires one or two steps to relay information to another individual. The research bears this out, but it's also common sense.
Valdis' Example
If I want to influence George Bush and I have a relationship with him, I have a good chance of getting information to him. If, instead, I know Barbara Bush well, I still have a good chance of getting the information to George. My relationship with Barbara and her relationship with George makes it probable, but there is already a chance that the information will not arrive in the form or with the focus that I intend.
Once one gets to three steps removed, say, I am the college roommate of Barbara Bush's high school roommate, there is much less of a chance that I can get information to George. I must rely on my contact to transmit the information to Barbara and then on Barbara (who doesn't know me) to get the information to George. If my information or message arrives with George at all, there's a good chance it will be distored.
More on Valdis and his ideas in the next post.
Inflow and Valdis Krebs
I was lucky enough to be trained for three days by Valdis Krebs who has been working in this field for twenty years.
In addition to years of experience across a variety of organizational models, Valdis has a remarkable talent for clarifying through anecdotes even the most complex concepts and abstract principles. He designed the Inflow software to untangle confusion with the same sort of power.
Exceptional Course Design
Without a doubt, Valdis is one of the best teachers I've encountered -- and that includes my time at Bryn Mawr and working toward my PhD at Brown. Beyond standard training, this course supports and demands learning and problem-solving that go beyond the parameters of any particular task.
What Does SNA Promise?
As firmly as Valdis believes network analysis can help organizations with everyday challenges, he is also quick to add that network issues comprise only one part of a bigger picture. Both the analyses and subsequent solutions only offer potential. The rest must be accomplished by those in the network with the right kind of support from the organization's leadership.
He indicated that this kind of analysis works best for organizations when looking at people at manager-level and above in the heirarchy. These are the networks and sections of the overall organizational flow that hold the greatest potential to improve flow of information.
What Parts of the Network Should Be Measured?
Valdis began by indicating that there is value for networks when an individual requires one or two steps to relay information to another individual. The research bears this out, but it's also common sense.
Valdis' Example
If I want to influence George Bush and I have a relationship with him, I have a good chance of getting information to him. If, instead, I know Barbara Bush well, I still have a good chance of getting the information to George. My relationship with Barbara and her relationship with George makes it probable, but there is already a chance that the information will not arrive in the form or with the focus that I intend.
Once one gets to three steps removed, say, I am the college roommate of Barbara Bush's high school roommate, there is much less of a chance that I can get information to George. I must rely on my contact to transmit the information to Barbara and then on Barbara (who doesn't know me) to get the information to George. If my information or message arrives with George at all, there's a good chance it will be distored.
More on Valdis and his ideas in the next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)