Listserv's continue to torment and inspire in roughly equal quantities, although moderation thank God is on the decline. Only ActKM of all the listservs I subscribe to maintains it although it is of necessity inconsistent with volunteer labour. The only effect is to slow down exchange, interrupt the flow of argument and stress the moderators unreasonably during times of intense posting. My Turing Test has turned up a troll, and in another forum, incredibly we have an apologist for fascism defending the opinions of the American Taliban. Add to that the trauma of our second (backs) / third (forwards) team beating the Australians for all bar the critical final 30 seconds of the match and its been a fraught few days. Dinner with Brenda Dervin last night (she had inveigled me to attend a day work shop of interesting and eclectic scholars) in a San Francisco vegan restaurant (I can strongly recommend it, especially the Neatloaf Dinner at under $10) was probably the highlight of the week so far, and some reflections on those conversations will follow later in the week.
So you can imagine my feelings when another network threw up (for this list) a hoary old chestnut of whether community means something different from networks. One strongly argued position was that we should abandon the word community as networks and more specifically value networks are IT. That prompted me to think a bit and produce the following list of statements on the subject that I offer for consideration:
- All communities are networks, but not all networks are communities
- All networks have (in the broadest definition) some value in the flow (note I do not use exchange) but not all are "value networks" in the context of its normal use in this community.
- Some aspects of network interactions have repeatable causal links that can be replicated by design, but many interactions are non-causal and can not be designed, but their evolution can be influenced.
- Visualisation is cool, but is only as valuable as the input to the calculations is valid
- There are as yet unresolved ethical and research issues associated with any type of network analysis in respect of input, and in terms of presentation/action
- We have unresolved issues over autopoetic behaviours in human networks which need to be resolved as they are crucial to dynamic understanding of networks.
- concepts of co-evolution (and linked issues of irreversibility and catastrophic change) are important for understanding networks but are not receiving anything like sufficient attention in either practice or theory
- Systems thinking has reached the limits of its contribution to our understanding of human systems, it is now inhibiting development and the confusion with complexity theory is dangerous.
- Nearly all managers, most practitioners and the majority of researches are locked into a 100 year old paradigm of science and radical change is needed, but it is not self evident how this is to be achieved
Comments (1)
Hi David.
A pity about the Wales Australia game - the Wallabies were pitiful, and Wales was robbed (not often you'll get that admission from me). Your post was very interesting and thought provoking. My comments are interwoven – no pun intended.
1. All communities are networks, but not all networks are communities. Agreed.
2. All networks have (in the broadest definition) some value in the flow (note I do not use exchange) but not all are "value networks" in the context of its normal use in this community. I think I agree, but I need to reflect on this further. I think a better statement is all networks are transactional.
3. Some aspects of network interactions have repeatable causal links that can be replicated by design, but many interactions are non-causal and can not be designed, but their evolution can be influenced. Agreed. I think networks are also holonic – that is each network has a unique identity yet is made up of subordinate parts and in turn is part of a larger whole.
4. Visualisation is cool, but is only as valuable as the input to the calculations is valid. Agreed. The visualisation tools are easy to use and misuse! In particular mathematical approaches to network analysis tend to treat the data as ‘deterministic’. That is, measurements are viewed as an accurate reflection of the ‘real’ or ‘final’ or ‘equilibrium’ state of the network. Further observations are usually regarded as the population of interest rather than a sample of some larger population of possible observations. If these limitations are understood then network analysis techniques can aid understanding.
5. There are as yet unresolved ethical and research issues associated with any type of network analysis in respect of input, and in terms of presentation/action. Agreed. Borgatti has an excellent paper on the issues associated with network analysis, and for that matter research in organisations in general. "Borgatti, S & Molina, J 2005, 'Toward ethical guidelines for network research in organizations', Social Networks, vol. 27, pp. 107-17."
6. We have unresolved issues over autopoietic behaviours in human networks which need to be resolved as they are crucial to dynamic understanding of networks. This is a very interesting observation. What do you think some of the autopoietic behaviours are?
7. Concepts of co-evolution (and linked issues of irreversibility and catastrophic change) are important for understanding networks but are not receiving anything like sufficient attention in either practice or theory. Agreed. I think network analysis techniques must treat networks as holonic.
8. Systems thinking has reached the limits of its contribution to our understanding of human systems, it is now inhibiting development and the confusion with complexity theory is dangerous. I agree the confusion with complexity theory I unhelpful. I do not agree the systems thinking comment. The problem with systems approaches is where to draw the boundary. Where the boundary is positioned determines the analysis outcome. Systems of systems approaches are talked about in the literature, but in practice I can find few real world examples of complete systems of systems analysis. I think systems of systems approaches still have something worthwhile to offer, and still have a way to go developmentally.
9. Nearly all managers, most practitioners and the majority of researches are locked into a 100 year old paradigm of science and radical change is needed, but it is not self evident how this is to be achieved. The scientific paradigm is certainly privileged. What the paradigm shift alternative might be is certainly not apparent.
Regards Graham
Graham Durant-Law
Mobile: 0408 975 795
E-Mail: mailto:graham@durantlaw.info
Web: http://www.durantlaw.info
Posted by Graham Durant-Law | May 27, 2007 2:01 AM
Posted on May 27, 2007 02:01