CRLFCRLFBut now. The Network Analysis takes two major approaches. On the one hand, it studies the message content, the sharing and comparing of knowledge, disagreements, synthesis via negotiating meaning, testing of hypotheses, proofs and admissions of change of knowledge. On the other hand, it studies the social network: the relations between actors, the power relations, time lags, and cohesion. It should be clear that we have two different things here: the former, a semantic network, and the latter, a social network. The hypothesis, a constructivist principle, is that "knowledge is constructed cooperatively through social negotiation." So one would expect that the dynamics of the social network would be reflected in the (emergent) semantic network.
CRLFCRLFThat's what this study tests: whether "A marked difference in the design of ALNs is associated with marked distinctions in the cohesion, role and power structures." And it concludes that such an association exists. But as the authors argue, "we cannot tell which of the design characteristics is the primary factor in the dynamics of the ALN. Is it the goals? The strict 'rules of the game'? The reward?" Moreover, this association almost certainly varies with the experience of the participants: a designed network structure is less necessary for experienced networkers (which is which 'ice-breakers' and similar games are so inappropriate for meetings among seasoned professionals).
CRLFJust as in logic, there is a distinction to be drawn between the syntax of an argument and the semantics of the same discourse, there is also a similar distinction to be drawn in the field of networking generally, between social (or syntactical) networking, that addresses the structure of the network, and semantical networking, that addresses the exchange of meaning (not content) in the network.CRLFCRLF
Today: 0 Total: 14 [Direct link] [Share]
