One more tool -  or exploring the practice of 

introducing new technologies in dispersed communities

Patricia Arnold, University of Applied Sciences Munich, Germany

John David Smith, Learning Alliances, Portland, USA

Beverly Trayner, Independent, Grass Valley, USA 

Our Context

• this research is part of an ongoing collaboration in facilitating learning communities with technologies and reflecting on this practice (cf. Arnold, Smith, Trayner 2006, 2007)  

• we work with learning communities in diverse settings (professional networks, higher education, corporate sector) and in different roles (facilitator, lecturer, technology steward, convenor)

• we share a conceptual backgroundo Lave & Wenger 1991, Wenger (1998) Communities of

Practiceo Wenger, White and Smith (2009) Digital Habitatso Ellis (2004) Autoethnographic I

• background many cases, 2 cases analyzed in depth, one presented here

Our Challenge/ Our Question

• What are the implications of (just) „one more tool“ in communities, given a proliferation of easy-to-use and free tools?– What are the design considerations when

introducing “one more tool”?– How does the “one more tool” interact with the

community’s learning agenda (domain), the relationships between members (community) and the practical engagement (practice)?

The Cases

1. Global community of practice in the public health arena:– established repertoire of community tools:

e-mail, phone and regional face-to-face meetings– one more tool:

video recordings to add physically absent people to face-to-face meetings

2. Community of distance learners in higher education– established repertoire of community tools:

forum, chat, file management in a standard commercial learning management system

– one more tool: a newly developped, spezialized platform for supporting peer-to-peer councelling („intervision“) (kollegiale-beratung.net)

Walking the talk - bringing in different voices …

Global Public Health CoP

Case A One more tool - video recordings

Context International group, in addition to e-mail & Phone F2F-meetings, larger F2F meeting is scheduled

Design Challenge

Time-pressed professionals, no straightforward access to Internet, trust is important issue, sometimes difficult diplomatic relations

Added Value Extend event beyond „same place, same time”, more people can actively participate, facilitator handle the technology

Potential Pitfalls Poor image quality with free tools, issues of privacy, time-consuming editing of video

Forces at Work (behind the scenes)

Rhetoric openness to new tools but de facto resistance to initial time investment to adopt the tool

Rubrics inspired by Kohls 2009

Our method

• Research method:between action research & autoethnography (for details cf. Arnold, Smith & Trayer 2006 and 2007)

• Data:extensive notes from joint planning sessions, individual participant observatory as well as artifacts from the communities involved

„one more tool“ impacts practice

• Opening up f2f event, bringing new voices to the table, established routines are changed

• Recorded conversations persist longer than f2f conversations

• Recordings are community artifacts, new skills and leadership roles in community needed

• Issues around privacy come into focus: storage, access,

etc.

„one more tool“ impacts community

• Involving members who cannot be present -> can change power constellation

• Integrating potentially controversial voices into the community discourse

• Informal conversations can reduce the barrier of formality for deepening conversations

• Nurturing horizontal accountability to fellow-practitioners

„one more tool“ impacts domain

• Additional voices will change the framing of the issues at stake, intensify the negotiation process

• video recordings require many decisions that influence the shaping of the domain (who to interview, which questions to ask, what editing, if any, etc.)

Findings„One more tool“ interacts with the entire community

Practice Community Domain

Case A Language, concepts and tools

Membership, relationship, history

Shared concern or inquiry

Recorded conversation

Different communication patterns (archiving conversations)

Triggers questions of expanding tool repertoire (storage of videos)

Changes whose voice is heard and whose is not

Contests boundaries of community

Influences power politics within community

Extends domain issues

Intensifies domain negotiation as previously marginal voices come into focus

Conclusions

• A new tool or technology in a dispersed community has far greater implications than usually dealt with

• For a more comprehensive assessment of a new tool the implication on practice, domain and community have to be reflected carefully:– How does the tool influence who is in/ who is out in a community?– How does the tool influence the boundaries?– How does the tool influence the power structure?

• A focus on features and affordances and a well designed introduction process are not sufficient

• The role of technology steward changes from technology advocate to convenor of new and diverse combinations of voices in a community

Thank your for your attention…

…the floor is open for discussion!