Cooperation
"Should a friend keep providing favors to another friend who never reciprocates? Should a business provide prompt service to another business that is about to be bankrupt?" (Axelrod, R 1984 p.vii)
"Should a friend keep providing favors to another friend who never reciprocates? Should a business provide prompt service to another business that is about to be bankrupt?" (Axelrod, R 1984 p.vii)
Cooperation is something we are all involved in throughout our various professional practices. As a dancer it is a fundamental part of my job and without I doubt I take part in it on an everyday basis. Human nature means we are likely to want to cooperate in order for ourselves as part of a group to benefit although what interested me in the reader was Game theory and the idea of the point of 'defect'. When do we stop defecting and start competing? In my own networks there is a constant underlying competition for roles/promotions/jobs etc. In order to gain the most benefit out of such competition and hopefully come out on top cooperation must come initially. For example.. working towards a role. A few are handpicked to learn it and they cooperate together in learning/remembering steps, gaining corrections, sharing ideas on the role. The defect comes when the director comes to choose who to dance it. They are head to head and must give an extra something to get the part. Both take the challenge on and through cooperation get to the best they can be then the home stretch is the time to prove their worth against each other. I likened this to the Tour de France strangely enough. The cycle group all work as a team to get each other through the first part, taking turns in being at the front against the headwind, then at the end stretch they individually sprint to win.
So in answer to Axelrod's question (without meaning to sound selfish) I would say no. The friend who is never reciprocating is already past the defect line and competing. The business that is about to be bankrupt is failing to cooperate back and in the natural race in profession, such collaboration will not help you get to your best. I have drawn a diagram that helps me visually understand the theory and how we need it to develop:
Affiliation
So in answer to Axelrod's question (without meaning to sound selfish) I would say no. The friend who is never reciprocating is already past the defect line and competing. The business that is about to be bankrupt is failing to cooperate back and in the natural race in profession, such collaboration will not help you get to your best. I have drawn a diagram that helps me visually understand the theory and how we need it to develop:
Affiliation
This is based on social psychology and how we naturally relate to each other. The idea that we form relationships as an 'inherited trait that helps us to survive and reproduce' (Crisp & Turner 2007 p323) and have a subconscious mutual respect for one anothers preferred levels of social interaction and privacy. When meeting new people and networking on a social level I am aware of how extraverted or introverted they are. I am quite an outgoing person meaning fact to face networking is what I tend to prefer and I have always been wary not to inflict this too much on people I believe to be more shy therefore I am already balancing my interactions with others. A cultural difference is something I witness. Living in Estonia people here in comparison seem quite blunt, to the point and not so friendly at first (which if you know of their history you can understand why!). This is something that I am conscious of and therefore can move forward when communicating in my work without offense or misunderstanding. Such theories imply that use of professional networks such as Facebook/Twitter/Network Dance are all ideal for everybody as each individual can control their own level of social communication with one another. Such Web 2.0 tools where communication isn't necessarily live and that you can edit, means professional networking can be an extension of our innate capacity and need to affiliate to develop our profession practices through our own choices.
Affiliation is both a natural process and one in which we all need to extend our contacts in order to work our way up our chosen career path. In order to make this happen growing networks sideways as well as upwards is crucial and a valued part of my profession. Connecting with other dancers is essential, as they say "Its not just about what you know, it's about who you know". I visualise this in a similar way to my above diagram on cooperation.
Social Constructionism
"Life is what you make it. Always has been always will be." (Eleanor Roosevelt, 1884-1962)
Social Constructionism is a theory that the world is 'objectively' out there and through our own creation and construction we understand it. The idea that our everyday notions and understandings of our surrounding environments and networks are what we have socially constructed. This suggests that we can create meaning and values to a group/network and contribute through engagement. This theory
is important when looking at networks as it highlights our motives for our participation in networking. By using Network Dance my motive is both to hear about auditions and for my profile and details to be accessible to those who may need it. Therefore my contribution (along with many other dancers') creates a reason for companies to advertise their auditions on there and seek out dancers who they may need. If I weren't to post any details then I am less likely to have people approach me for work and on a bigger scale if no dancers did, companies would not notify us of such auditions. So in terms of the value of social constructionism...The network is what we make of it.
Connectivism
This theory effectively argues that the 'normal' learning method of a teacher passing on knowledge to students is less effective than learning through connecting with others and making sense of information from our own and each others experiences (quite like our theme of self reflection). It also acknowledges our culture and how learning concepts should be the coherent:
"...technology has reorganized how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn. Learning needs and theories that describe learning principles and processes, should be reflective of underlying social environments." (Siemens, G 2004)
In my own practice I do find this idea useful and already come across it when networking. It is useful to have access to others' experiences and knowledge on a wide range of things (technique, ballets, roles, jobs etc) and interaction can definitely help us to learn however I don't reject the idea of learning knowledge from a teacher.
Communities of Practice
I found this theory to link closely with connectivism: the idea of learning through socialising and participation instead of personal acquisition and knowledge given through instruction. This theory is often adopted by homeschooled children and the idea that you will learn what is necessary for life by interacting with the world and those around you, instead of being taught from a textbook. It is insinuated that those who involve their community in this way will be more knowledgably 'savvy' than those who regurgitate knowledge learnt through instruction:
Affiliation is both a natural process and one in which we all need to extend our contacts in order to work our way up our chosen career path. In order to make this happen growing networks sideways as well as upwards is crucial and a valued part of my profession. Connecting with other dancers is essential, as they say "Its not just about what you know, it's about who you know". I visualise this in a similar way to my above diagram on cooperation.
Social Constructionism
"Life is what you make it. Always has been always will be." (Eleanor Roosevelt, 1884-1962)
Social Constructionism is a theory that the world is 'objectively' out there and through our own creation and construction we understand it. The idea that our everyday notions and understandings of our surrounding environments and networks are what we have socially constructed. This suggests that we can create meaning and values to a group/network and contribute through engagement. This theory
is important when looking at networks as it highlights our motives for our participation in networking. By using Network Dance my motive is both to hear about auditions and for my profile and details to be accessible to those who may need it. Therefore my contribution (along with many other dancers') creates a reason for companies to advertise their auditions on there and seek out dancers who they may need. If I weren't to post any details then I am less likely to have people approach me for work and on a bigger scale if no dancers did, companies would not notify us of such auditions. So in terms of the value of social constructionism...The network is what we make of it.
Connectivism
This theory effectively argues that the 'normal' learning method of a teacher passing on knowledge to students is less effective than learning through connecting with others and making sense of information from our own and each others experiences (quite like our theme of self reflection). It also acknowledges our culture and how learning concepts should be the coherent:
"...technology has reorganized how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn. Learning needs and theories that describe learning principles and processes, should be reflective of underlying social environments." (Siemens, G 2004)
In my own practice I do find this idea useful and already come across it when networking. It is useful to have access to others' experiences and knowledge on a wide range of things (technique, ballets, roles, jobs etc) and interaction can definitely help us to learn however I don't reject the idea of learning knowledge from a teacher.
Communities of Practice
I found this theory to link closely with connectivism: the idea of learning through socialising and participation instead of personal acquisition and knowledge given through instruction. This theory is often adopted by homeschooled children and the idea that you will learn what is necessary for life by interacting with the world and those around you, instead of being taught from a textbook. It is insinuated that those who involve their community in this way will be more knowledgably 'savvy' than those who regurgitate knowledge learnt through instruction:
"Because the place of knowledge is within a community of practice, questions of learning must be addressed within the development cycles of that community" (Lave & Wegner 1991 p100)
Being a dancer involves a lot of use of this theory especially when networking. We rely a lot on the shared interpretation of knowledge within our networks such as how to improve our technique, good ways to prevent injury, ways to strengthen your muscles, what to wear for auditions, the list is endless. Such information would be less valuable if it had been recited to you by someone who had no experience. We are more likely to learn from it by giving it a go and negotiating our experiences with others' experiences. I personally value this theory a lot as where I am today is a result of involving myself in a community of practice where I gained and am continuing to gain knowledge acquired for my career path.
I touched on ethical considerations for networking in my last post briefly. Martin Weller's point "It is not just the internet that is significant in terms of networks but, more recently, the advent of social networks that is having an influence on scholarly practice." (2011, p.7) links with my previous point on how maybe we should be educated specifically on what is ethically correct on social networks. This would create more awareness of how we come across on such sites and naivety would be less of an issue. In BAPP we are learning via networking and effectively becoming more aware of our own ethical considerations.
I touched on ethical considerations for networking in my last post briefly. Martin Weller's point "It is not just the internet that is significant in terms of networks but, more recently, the advent of social networks that is having an influence on scholarly practice." (2011, p.7) links with my previous point on how maybe we should be educated specifically on what is ethically correct on social networks. This would create more awareness of how we come across on such sites and naivety would be less of an issue. In BAPP we are learning via networking and effectively becoming more aware of our own ethical considerations.
I like the way you have added great examples into this emma, i think i will be taking some examples from your work as you have explained this task with great detail. :)
ReplyDelete