Task 3b

Here is my, task 3b, sorry I haven't been around and commenting, I have  been really busy with the new job and being at sea, the wifi is terrible to non existent. 

After reading reader 3 and other sources of information I think I have managed to obtain a decent understanding of each theory regarding networking. Below I will go through what I have learned and my thoughts and feelings on the matter.

Cooperation.

This is a big one within the industry I work. I always heard people saying 'play the game' and I knew exactly what was meant by that however I was unaware that it was actually a real thing. I just didn't realise that it has been researched so intensely and I found it fascinating.

I 'play the game' all the time on reflection but I was unsure if it came as a natural instinct for me or if it was learnt behaviour at the beginning. Axelrod said that ' a point worth stressing at the onset is that this approach differs from that of Sociobiology. Sociobiology is based on the assumption that important aspects of human behaviour are guided by our genetic inheritance. Richard Dawkins (the selfish gene) believes that it is not natural at all and that this behaviour of cooperation is learned.  I think that cooperation is definitely a natural instinct to a certain extent because even animals do it, for instance cats know exactly who to 'butter up' in order to get what they want whether it be food or attention and once they have achieved their desired goal they leave..... 'cooperating fully with others until you reach a point of maximum benefit and then to defect' Axelrod (1984). However when it gets to a certain level I.E 'professional Networking' I believe that is when it becomes strategic. For example I have a good network of people and we all have similar interests and goals in life. We all possess different strengths and weaknesses. Together we can be very strong. My networks are my people and my people are my resources. I can call upon any of them to help me to get what I need in order to move onwards and upwards. I will even cooperate with people who are not necessarily 'my cup of tea' in order to get what I need. I know that sounds awful but I am just being honest. Everyone does it in order to succeed and those who don't, I believe will not be as successful as they could be. I will say though when I 'play the game' with somebody who isn't 'my cup of tea' I will use the 'tit for tat' method, I will give them what they give me, I would never just take from someone because I don't believe that it is ethically correct but then again looking a bit deeper, maybe that is strategic too because I know that I work by giving and taking and should someone take advantage of my good nature I will close down and give them nothing. Luckily in my professional networks they are mostly friends as well as colleagues so more often than not 'the game' is friendly and positive, we get out what we put in.

I looked closely at the 'prisoners dilemma' I think that it puts quite a negative spin on 'the game' which I do think there is definitely a dark and sly side to, but more often than not in my experience it is positive and friendly like I mentioned earlier. I suppose if you are in doubt if the game plan is positive or negative, this is when you could ask yourself 'when should a person cooperate and when should a person be selfish in an ongoing interaction with another person'? Axelrod (1984). This also brings me on to a subject I came across earlier, 'is there any such thing as a selfless act? I wanted to say yes at first but after thinking on it I am not sure. I buy little gifts for my friends sometimes, if I see something they would like I get it for them, that is selfless right? no? actually I'm not sure. I do it because it makes me feel good, I like the feeling of making others happy. Does this mean I'm selfish? Maybe it does to a certain extent. However it is all done with good intentions and everyone all round, on that occasion is happy so I'm ok with it.

Cooperation is a great tool to use and it has definitely opened my eyes and I shall be using it wisely in my years to come.

Affiliation.

Humans are very social creatures mostly, we like to form close relationships with other people. It makes us feel happy, safe and offers support when we feel weak. It is an inherited trait used for survival however these days survival isn't as hard as it used to be. 'Affiliation is a social process that provides us with a network of support that will help us when we are in need' (Crisp and Turner, 

2007). It is dependent on the person to what level of affiliation we want to pursue. It can be affected by different cultures and backgrounds. Gunmar (2000) did some research on children in orphanages and it showed lack of social interaction which adversely affected the brain and hormonal system to deal with stress. This really surprised me in a way because I thought that children in orphanages would have created deep and meaningful relationships with each other almost like a family. 

Research has shown that lack of affiliation can have a lasting negative impact. Personally I like a high level. I enjoy to be around people most of the time, occasionally my levels are lowered generally if I am tired or irritated but as a rule I like interaction.  Some research was done as to why people prefer different levels and why it is important to get the balance right. The research showed that whether you are an introvert or an extrovert will determine what level of affiliation you prefer (O'Connor and Rosenblood, 1996).  Brain Imaging studies (Johnson and Colleagues, 1999) show that introverts are higher in arousability than extroverts. Introverts will steer clear of Social Interaction as this could create uncomfortable levels of arousal, whereas Extroverts have low levels of arousal, therefore will seek out social situations to stimulate a desirable level of arousal (Crisp and Turner, 2007). Judging by this research I think I am clearly an extrovert to which I think a lot of performers are. It is important to get the balance of affiliation just right because if it sways too far one way we can become over crowded or even feel isolated. I think we naturally control our affiliation without even consciously thinking about it  in order to achieve our desired level of affiliation at any one time. 

I work a lot at sea and I have not really looked into affiliation before now but it is so important especially when you are away from home for such a long time. The people here are my colleagues but they are also people I make that connection with after work. They are my support vessel, they are there for me if I need cheering up because I feel home sick or whatever the problem may be and I am their support vessel too. We look after one another. They are my professional network but also the people closest to me geographically and socially at that time, we can't go home to our families every night for that support so we turn to each other. Affiliations happen very quickly at sea I think because you have been ripped from your known habitat which is comfortable and safe and suddenly when it is gone and you feel so isolated and alone you quickly attach yourself to others to get that security back. People get very close very quickly at sea, you seem to form a new family almost.

Social Constructionism.

We touched on an aspect of this in reader 2 when it was spoken about 'how meanings about the world are made' and the fact that it is us who pull meaning from our experiences, before we came along there was no meaning to the world until we came and made our own meaning. Everyone is different in how they think and see things. Crotty (2005) said "All knowledge and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context". 

Relating this to my networks I cannot say that I have thought about this consciously regarding what my networks mean to me until now. I just know that I have some networks that I class as a higher priority than others at any one given time. Somebody else will see it completely differently and prioritise in another way. I know that my networks mean a lot to me, without them I would be lost, they help me succeed through life both professionally and socially. Looking at it this way has made me realise how important it is to extract meaning, it gives a purpose, a drive and installs appreciation that can sometimes be lost over time. It says in reader 3 that "existing and future networks are made and the meanings they make are not pre-determined". "Meaning is not discovered it is constructed" Crotty(2005).  I don't totally agree with that statement, I think that some people do pre-determine networks, they will try and get into a network because they can see 

the potential of what can be achieved by doing so and in that instance, that person will know prior exactly what the meaning of being 'in' with that network is to them, rubbing shoulders with people who potentially could help get them to where they want to be. I think this links in with 'the game', all 

of these theories are so closely linked I find, they all work together. I have met a few people in my life who will pre-determine friendships in order to achieve a role in their career that they desire. I don't think that is ethically correct, keeping someone sweet and using someone is completely different. However some people are that career minded that they don't seem to care.

Reading about this has made me aware that over time, networks and their importance to you change, what network was once important 5 years ago may not be so now. That is life. We should still recognise that it was once important to us and that should be very much appreciated and never forgotten because you never know when that network could make a comeback in your life and you need those people. We still have to engage the other theories such as cooperation and affiliation even in distant networks. I saw a quote earlier which read " be nice to people on the way up, you may meet them again on your way down" this is so true and something I practice and I think everyone else should too.

Connectivism

At first I wasn't exactly sure what this part was trying to tell me, however the meaning that I have constructed from what I have read is basically - in order to learn we have to connect. When you think about it, it seems obvious; we learn all the time whether we are connecting with other human beings, our environment, books, objects and now the Internet. It is just a whole world of learning out there especially with Web 2.0 and if we just connect with those elements, that knowledge can be installed within ourselves. Vaill (1996) said "Learning must be a way of being - an ongoing set of attitudes and actions by individuals and groups that they employ to try to keep abreast of the surprising, novel, obtrusive, recurring events....". I like the first part of that quote, learning is a way of being, the world Is evolving, technologically is evolving and this is happening at such a rate we risk being left behind if we do not employ learning in to our everyday life, it is so important in order for us to be successful professionally and socially.

 

We have all these networks these days in which we can connect with and learn from, it has never been easier with the technology we possess in this day. I did some work experience in a college a few months ago and it opened my eyes to how things have changed. When I was at school the register was done by reading out the names and  that would warrant a response such as "yes Miss" not at that college, all the students had iPads that were all recognised by the teachers iPad as being present. All the work is done on laptop which opens up so many resources. I had a text book and at home I had a computer game which had an encyclopaedia as well as games to help promote effective learning. I learn so differently these days and I believe we all do, it is so much more interactive. Sometimes I find it difficult to read information and actually concentrate fully therefore I can potentially miss vital information. For example I was trying to read about the 'prisoners dilemma' but for some reason my mind was not focussing so I managed to find a video on YouTube which explained it in a way that I remained focused and managed to extract the meaning. Long gone are the days of just learning from a teacher, Launder and Dumais (1997) said that "People have much more knowledge than appears to be present in the information to which they have been exposed to". This I believe to be true. I use my networks to gain advice and knowledge. If they have experienced things which I have not, I can learn from their experiences and vice versa. If I have had an experience in an area where my friend has not, I tell them about my experience and what I learned, where I went wrong or where I went right. It is such a benefit and helps to make life that little bit easier. I think we all do this however we are just not aware of it. 

In my opinion everyone is my teacher, I can learn something important from anyone, be like a sponge, connect and absorb everything you can.

Community of Practice

My understanding of this is that we are a community brought together because of what we do. We all have similar interests and should stick together because together we are strong, we have an abundance of information, support, knowledge and experience between us. 

We are a part of many little communities within our life. I think all these theories closely overlap and in order to be a successful member of the community you have to put in as much as you take out, you have to get involved and interact. At the moment I feel like I am at a great disadvantage because I cannot connect and interact with my community very easily. In order for me to get the most from this course I do need to interact and be an active member of our little BAPP community however I am in the middle of the ocean and my main tool that I use to immerse myself into our collective intelligence and support unit is like gold dust. The tool I am talking about is Web 2.0. My BAPP community is unreachable at times and I need it, I need you as an individual and you could need me, without it we are  not as strong as we could be. Lave and Wenger (1991) say that within communities of practice there is a ' reproduction cycle', the engagement of an individual will have a huge effect on this ' reproduction cycle'. I believe this means we all must give in order for our community to work effectively.

I have a whole different community on my ship.  My community onboard are my colleagues and friends. In work they are colleagues and out of work, friends. They have been great. This is currently my 1st week in a new job, they have shared knowledge, experience and resources with me as well as showed me support. After reading and thinking about this, it has really opened my mind to things I took for granted before. I feel that all my networks are invaluable and I will nurture them and respect them by giving back to them what they put out for me, we all must do this for the 'reproductive cycle'.

I can relate a lot to all of these theories in one way or another and I think that they all go hand in hand. Everyone is different in which theory features more predominantly in their practice but to be aware and adopt certain aspects in which you agree with can help us to achieve our goals. It is all down to interpretation but professional networks are important to everybody no matter what your profession or goals. Respect all of your communities no matter how highly you regard their importance at any particular time, you never know when you may need to call upon them.

References

Axelrod, R. (1984) The evolution of cooperation. London: Penguin

Serendip (2005) ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’, Available from:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html.

Crisp, J & Turner, R. (2007) Essential social psychology. London: Sage

Crotty. M. (2005) The foundations of social research: meaning and perspectives in the research process, London: Sage

Gunmar (2000)

Hofstede (1980)

Launder and Dumais (1997)

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press

O’Connor & Rosenblood (1996 pp267)

Vaill (1996)

Hope you are all doing well. Danni xxx