Degrees of openness - identity, networks and visualisations

Maintaining a presence

One of the questions asked around degrees of openness was whether we ‘maintained’ a social media presence. This in itself is an interesting question, as ‘maintained’ suggests that I am creating my persona. Now most of us at first thought would probably say ‘no’. As it suggest some form of narcissism or manipulation. However we do, do this everyday, as I have mentioned in a previous post. What we wear, how we speak, where we go, the groups we join are all part of creating ‘brand me’ (it’s a new buzzword which I credit Dave Coplin as I heard it from him first). 

So I think that I probably do maintain my identity. After all, I choose what pictures I am going to use on my profile, the background etc. On Twitter I choose hat to retweet and what to favourite – and at times there has been stuff that I find interesting, but that I haven’t ‘favourited’ because it might be just be a little too challenging.

Because my presence, isn’t just about me is it? It’s about those I have connected with too. And they deserve my trust and respect. So how to manage personal space in an online environment? And should I? (Thoughts on the back of a virtual postcard please!). So, sometimes I will post boring stuff like where I am going and what I am doing (although, it’s not often I post what I am having for tea). We network online because we want to feel connected. If you are my friend on Facebook (and I am afraid that’s only for family and friends/colleagues who I have a close connection with, or one or two old uni friends who make me smile), then you will be able to tell when I am writing an essay or home alone, as I post more often! I guess it’s because I want to feel connected. So I guess I use Facebook for personal space, whereas I use Twitter for more ‘social’ space.

Networks and visualisations

One of the tasks this week has been to explore visualisations, and what they might tell us about our networks, or not. I love a good picture so found this fun.

mentionmapp. This app visualises your networks, which is kind of interesting, but it only does it over a period of time. 

The idea is great, as you can then click in to look at the networks of your networks. It could be a really useful tool to show other practitioners how you are connecting, and how links are made.

Twitonomy

This needs a page all to itself! But it was interesting to look at some of the data and graphics around my use of twitter. Apparently I tweet about 5 times a day. I was

interested in the graphs that show who I retweet, mention and talk to as this shows maybe some of the more proactive relationships in my network, or maybe those people I find most interesting/useful.

Good to see that my work hashtag #scoutsafe is the one I have used most (I definitely need to get batter at the hashtag, as I am starting to realise how useful they can be from a data perspective)

I was intrigued by the 'times I tweet', which show that Wednesday is my peak day, but also probably highlight the patterns of internet use over the day (peaking at lunchtimes!) and show when I am asleep! I guess all of these analytics, especially the follows and the retweets could be useful if I was trying to improve my 'presence'. It's a lot of data to think about.

Just so you know...I rescinded the permissions to access my data after using them.....

Degrees of openness

Here we are again – identity, privacy, openness. The Networked Practitioner is cleverly taking us through an investigative and reflective journey to think about our own practice and where we want to be.  I have done a lot of researching this week, and networking, but may be not so much reflecting. For any of you Scouting people also reading my blog, this is definitely learning by doing. But maybe my journey will help you with yours.

The first task of the week asked us to think about our own stances on openness in regards to publishing work as a ‘digital scholar’ (see previous post). I have never published anything other than my blog and twitter feed, so I have no idea what my feelings about publishing only in open-access journals would be. At this point I think I would just be amazed to be published anywhere! I think that given my passionate desire to change the way that fellow practitioners do things, and that my ‘practice’ sits in informal education, that I would probably say that I would opt for open access. I will let you know if I ever do get published!!

So, what about sharing learning material openly? We were asked a couple of questions around this area of sharing our own material. Would we share unfinished work; and would we share immediately and openly. The answer to this will depend on what you are sharing, your profession and your field. As a tutor group it has been interesting to acknowledge that for some, their material is their income, and so sharing openly may impact their finances. While for others, their job dictates that what they create, belongs to the organisation for which they created it. I had not really considered intellectual property rights before, and it’s not a discussion I have had in my work life. (I will be going back to work next week and checking this out’.

But am I worried about my intellectual property. After all, the whole of life is a mash up and I am sure that we could never reference everybody who may have influenced our ways of thinking. Ordinarily when I create resources for work, I have no desire to put my name to them, as that’s not important and there is a bigger picture (plus, it’s what I am paid to do) But if I am trying to build my practitioner status, is it important for people to attribute me? Naturally I want to inspire people, but the worry is that in sharing my ideas and creations, someone my take that and make money out of it. I think this is why the creative commons approach is important. I never really got it before, but it’s a way to say, ’here you go, here’s what I created and you can use it too….as long as you don’t make money from it’!

The other thing to think about is also the sensitivity of your creations. Working in the safeguarding field, there are times when we share and create confidential material, which would not be appropriate to share openly and out of context. And then there is sharing work that isn’t finished yet….and I think that is for more closed networks unless you are working collaboratively to create stuff.

Time. It’s not really a resource, but it’s one thing that shapes what and how we do things. Thus for most people things they can do easily are more likely to happen. I am a dreamer a times, but ultimately pragmatic. I think that building things into the daily routine makes it easier. Thus if publishing and sharing finds a natural place in the everyday, I think it would make to easier. That’s not to say that some effort isn’t required. And when I really think about it. It I can be better networked to my fellow practitioners, and they can help in collaboration, then ultimately we might be able to co-create resources more quickly than finding the time to do it alone.

Identity and openness

Last week kicked off on Twitter with Tim Berners Lee talking about a new model for privacy on the internet. The discussion focussed on the need for people to take control and ownership of data, and that the fear of big data and being spied on has make us distrusting......

...therefore do we need to be more comfortable in sharing information and does there need to be better ways of protecting our privacy? 

Of course, when apps request potential access to your data, without telling you what they might use it for, it’s easy to see why people might be distrustful. I was always taught that data protection meant not collecting data that you don’t need, and telling people what you are going to do with that data ( see the recent Whisper stories for an example of companies approaches to privacy and changing terms and conditions).

We often don’t pay much attention to the permissions requests when we sign up to new services. There is a growing distrust of what companies are doing with our data, and I wonder if that has a knock on effect to our ideas of identity and openness?

At the other end of the extreme Pyschology today published an article on why we over share online and the disinhibition effect. The article talks about how anonymity and invisibility cause people to behave in very different ways. It ends however with a bit about authority and how people can feel there is more equality online so they feel more empowered to say the things they may not say offline. I wonder if that is true when it comes to peer creation and peer review?

Most e-safety training starts with asking people if they have googled themselves, or what kind of digital footprint they are creating. (For the record, my take is that we should create positive footprints online, and therefore I encourage adults and young people to use the net creatively, actively and positively : if they want to). Which moves me on to perceptions of others. Most humans worry about what others think of them, even those who say they don’t. When asking a group of teenagers about freedom online this weekend, they were very clear that they had freedom, but that with that freedom comes responsibility; to act appropriately , but also to be called into account if you do something wrong. They also told me how they managed their media. So if they were friends with family on Facebook, then they self-edit what they post there.

But what does this mean for the developing, networked professional? As this week on H818 is about Openness and Privacy, it seems right to be thinking about what this means to me. In the “offline world” I approach people, tasks and work in very different ways, depending on my colleagues, the audience or the environment.  It’s a bit like deciding what clothes to put on. Different audiences require different approaches, in order to engage at the right level (I am thinking about power here), be culturally sensitive, and to communicate the right messages. I am pretty sure this is true when it comes to digital scholarship too. You have to figure out which are the groups you need to join, how to communicate and which communities/resources/publishers are the ones that you need. But where do you start if you are outside of academia. This is something that I will be investigating.

In fact, these thoughts of identity pervade all aspects of our life, whether it’s getting a job, a partner, or a publishing deal. Some of the things that I am involved in outside of work, are partly as a result of what I do in work. I am lucky that I have found a passion in my work, which means I want to part of the bigger debate and I want to be an active voice in making change. However, does my involvement in these things impact my work? I am after all a spoke-person for my organisation, but it doesn’t mean that I am always talking on behalf of my organisation. Hopefully, given that we are values-based, there won’t be too much conflict, but I have become acutely aware of this, and just as I wrestle with my identity and openness as an online practitioner, so I wrestle with my identity and openness as an “offline” practitioner.  And this takes me back to the end of the last blog post. Sometimes, we cannot decide what we share or how open we are, as our jobs (think teachers using Facebook) or circumstances (say foster parents) tell us otherwise.

“My job does not define me”. This was one of my take-away notes following our staff conference, where we were talking about collaboration and team-working across teams and finding and developing expertise. But in order for people to understand this, they need to engage with me, talk to me, work with me, and see my creations. And I think this is the same journey that one must take as an online practitioner. I will be defined by what people see, what I do and how I engage.  

I want to end this post with this fab video from iDea. I think it's a great poem and visual about collaboration and some of the questions that I have (despite me not really be part of that generation)

Students and professionals as open scholars

“This section encourages you to think about the options and challenges presented by openness and why this is attracting attention. You will need to make a personal decision about your own openness. You should look at the implications for those you work with as well as for yourself”

The challenges and potential of openness…or to put it simply “what’s the point of sharing online.” Given that module H818 is called the ‘Networked Practitioner’, it’s not a surprise that the first thing we need to think about is our own views of openness. Now, I am on my final module for the masters (MAODE), which means that I have been there before. But if I go back to the start I will probably find that my views and practices have changed, as my identity and experiences have developed. And that’s what life is like. Our experiences shape us. As we grow confident, we are able to share more of ourselves.

This is certainly true for me in many aspects of life. In fact, delivering training a few weeks again, one of my volunteers said to me, and not in a patronising way, how much I had grown as a professional and how much more confident, and natural I was in my approach to training. So I guess that’s my starting point. Openness requires trust and confidence. I hated twitter the first time round. Now it is an important part of my daily life. Trying to blog before felt stunted, as I hadn’t yet found my voice. I hope now that it’s starting to take shape.

Our first reading is Veletsianos and KImmons’s ‘Assumptions and challenges of open Scholarship’ . Their article is a reflection on the need to evaluate and reflect on ‘open scholarship’.  A critical skill which my last module has definitely helped me to develop. We can be optimistic or deterministic, but really a bit of critical evaluation goes a long way. V & K comment on the hopes that manifest around open scholarship, with its breadth of access, reduction in costs and enhancement of the impact of learning and scholarship.

 “anyone can learn anything from anyone at anytime” (Bonk, 2009,pp 7)

But can they? V & K take us through four assumptions about open scholarship, and the challenges for scholars today. (Although I don’t work in formal scholarship, I think my experiences with informal learning and knowledge, has examples that link to the assumptions).

1. Open scholarship has a strong ideological basis rooted in an ethical pursuit for democratization, fundamental human rights, equality, and justice.
2. Open scholarship emphasizes the importance of digital participation for enhanced scholarly outcomes.
3. Open scholarship is treated as an emergent scholarly phenomenon that is co-evolutionary with technological advancements in the larger culture.
4. Open scholarship is seen as a practical and effective means for achieving scholarly aims that are socially valuable.

Openness and equality

Does openness created equality? In the last week we have had stories in the news about how the digital divide is opening in UK schools because of poor broadband access in parts of the country, although Ofcom was quick to point out that these divides are narrowing. V & K raise the question about ‘who profits and who is excluded by openness’, and we should always have that in mind. Technology is not always the great leveller. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean that I can use it, or know how to use it. However, there can be no doubt that open access has changed the way we access information. I couldn’t study the way I do without it, and when I want to know something, there is a world of information at my fingertips to analyse and sort.

The ideological basis? Some could argue that open is just a new business model, or that it’s a useful component for arguing for openness. The recent Tristam Hunt story comes to mind here, in which the prime minister called out some hypocrisy between being a labour minister and his upbringing. Even if you do belong to a privileged few, doesn’t mean that you can’t fight for democracy and equality, and want to change the status quo for the benefit of others. I think that humanity has been doing this for thousands of years.

V & K note that definition of open scholarship is not consistent, and instead focus on three forms of scholarship – Open access and publishing, open education and networked participation. You can find equality in all of these, but it does require you to know where to look. If you don’t know the right people or place to go how do you shift through? If we are not careful it has the potential to cause another social divide, rather than democratisation.

Enhancing scholarly skills

But does being open enhance ones scholarly skills? Or have we just transpose one environment for another? After all, often we network with the people we share an interest in, and this may be no different to network within a faculty. Open scholarship has the possibility of reaching out to others outside of your known world, and maybe even in different disciplines, which might help scholars to grow outside their ‘bubble’. This is why I now share all my interests on twitter. After all, I am not just about learning and technology, but also about safeguarding, women (especially in science), social equality…..so by following different people with different attitudes, and maybe even different views to my own, I can get new perspectives. For me different perspectives help me to refine my own. But do you need to participate to enhance the outcomes, could you just consume? So if we want digital participation to enhance our outcomes we need to be prepared to seek out those who can really challenge us and not just stick with our security blankets.

There is a fear of openness, and sharing work, ideas, especially while they are still being honed. And does being open change the way you say things, both on a personal and on a corporate level. Open courses potentially have a wider audience to deliver to, so does that change the messages and learning which is delivered? I think this comes back to trust and confidence. It’s a bit like posting in an OU forum (and I reflected on this back in H807 Innovations in e-learning). To start with you spend hours thinking about how to reply. Then eventually you just reply, and you don’t care about the spelling mistakes, because you want to hear what other people think. The gooey, misshaped thoughts are what’s exciting about online learning.

It takes time…

However, to be open one needs to skills to participate, and as V & K note, it takes time to appropriate and use digital tools (as I have already alluded to). Participation (yes we have been here before in H800, practices and debates ). Just as one needs to be enculturated into scholarly practices, so one needs to be enculturated into digital scholarly practices. Familiarity with technologies helps a great deal in learning how to use them effectively. Therefore, is it only those who are already ‘digitally literate’ that can truly benefit? Thus we get to questions about teaching these digital literacies at an earlier stage – but I wonder whether as time advances, we don’t necessarily have to teach openness, but rather help our next generation of scholars enhance the abilities they already have. After all, ‘networked’ is something that young people today seem to understand, right?

Technology shaping practice

 “…the relationship between technology and practice is negotiated in that technology shapes practice and practice shapes the way technology is used”

So apparently technology isn’t neutral and the values and norms we have maybe conflict with the values and norms of a digital world. But maybe these cultures and norms need to be challenged? Or maybe there is a fear that openness will shine a light and show us lacking? Much of the literature tries to counter this by showing/telling how technology affords the same as before, just in a different way.

A good example is one of the tools I use often – Padlet (used to be wallwisher which sound so much better). Many of our leaders are from the babyboom generation, and so scout training is awash with the use of post-it notes. Therefore is has been much easier to integrate this into practice, as a way of sharing ideas online. Also, the taking time part is important, and I am now seeing the use of webinars, videos, blogs and digitally content becoming a more normal and accepted way of engaging our audiences.  

But actually technology does allow us to change our practices and do things in new ways, thus shaping our scholarly achievements. As one person I cannot support 300 people across the UK. But as a network group, then we can probably create, develop, support and innovate far more effectively, provide we have the willingness.

Assumptions and challenges…

So we need to unpick assumptions and highlight challenges if we are to be effective advocates for openness in our scholarly endeavours. For me, my colleagues are spread across the UK, and so I need technology to help me connect. Also, one of the principles of Scouting is ‘learning by doing’, so this is a good place to start on this module.

Does openness promote equality – maybe, potentially, but let’s be clear about our purposes for openness and not use equality as a smokescreen for purpose.

Is participation required – yes, if you are talking about being networked. But participation doesn’t need to be ‘vocal’. And we need to make sure that we look for the little as well as the big voices, or at least help them find ways to be heard.

Is there a reciprocal relationship of technology and culture – sure. Technology is a tool, a cultural tool, that allows us to change the way we view things, say things, do things and most importantly how we interact.

Does openness help us in achieving scholarly aims – well that depends on what your scholarly aim is.

Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How Web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.

Veletsianos, G. and Kimmons, R. (2012) ‘Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship.’ The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, vol. 13, no. 4, 166–189 [online]. Available at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1313/2304 (Accessed 6 October 2014).