I’m relieved to have got to the end of last week’s reading (23). Here are my objections:
The first is over complexity, much head scratching has gone on to explain metaphors in order to then use them to understand learning in a technology mediated world. It seems easier to me to look at where we are and describe what we see rather than shoehorn metaphors into this space. (cf light wave: wave, particle or something we will just call light).
Secondly, we seem to be weaving organisational (product based) descriptions into learning spaces without acknowledging key differences.
Having said that here are a couple of random thoughts:
Jones’ description of networks highlight the problem of organisational direction in HE. In comparison with industry consensus finding is emphasised – being a VC must be a bit like being the arch bishop overseeing the church of England.
Criticisms of communities of practice do resonate, yes there is often no master, people may not always journey to the centre, and mechanisms for innovation and breakaways are not considered. But mycorrhizae? For goodness sake I don’t know how to say it, even though I kind of get the idea of what it is.
I’m going to stick with multi dimensional networks, with nodes as individuals or ‘communities’, and the inherent assumption of multiple membership, the possibilities of new nodes and connections, and if one node gets a bit tired and jaded another bit will grow up with new ideas and connections. Hey…is that learning stuff beginning to sound like, well, a brain?