Archive for December, 2007

Got Culture?

Sunday, December 30th, 2007

cultureOf course you do.

Lots and lots of live cultures are living in your communities of practice.

How cool is that? …and how challenging…?

Take something as simple and as complex as a conference call.

For many communities of practice, conference calls are a primary means of community communication – the place where members meet to check in, build relationships, problem solve, share information, and otherwise conduct the work of their community.

A preliminary surf of the web shows basic “how-tos” for managing conference calls. Most of these guides tend to focus on common facilitation techniques that are intended to provide structures and norms for productive outcomes. They rarely address the cultural assumptions underlying specific communities of practice, or the assumptions behind what it means to be “productive.”

The issue of culture struck me while on a conference call about conference calls. During the call, members of a distributed community of practice shared their practices of how they ran calls with their own CoPs. Some conducted their conference calls with the controlled finesse of a concert conductor. Others were more improvisational. And of course there were those who worked somewhere in between or who preferred to flow from one style to another.

Below are some examples of cultural norms that surfaced in the call:

  • Speaking in turn, in an orderly fashion
  • Speaking out of turn – interruptions are regarded as part of the conversation rather than as digressions
  • Building in periods of reflective silence (and being able to tolerate this silence and understand it as productive within the context of the culture)
  • Backchanneling during the call usually via email or IMing – some consider it rude that participants are multitasking; for others, it is an important way of actively engaging with colleagues to connect, share information, exchange comments, etc.
  • Revolving membership in the community – people are constantly joining or leaving the community; the community is constantly changing
  • Consistent membership in the community – people maintain their membership over time and might know each other from other venues

Community members shared some of their facilitation techniques for conference calls:

  • Prime participants in advance of a call by sending out a provocative question to get them thinking about the topic
  • Provide an outline of the call in advance, with stopping points
  • Ask a key question at the beginning of the call that serves to measure issues common to the group, learn more about individual members’ work, break the ice by having each member participate, and launch the conversation
  • Create a safe environment through the use of taxonomies questions – moving the group from factual, safe questions to more creative, analytic ones
  • Have participants ask questions about the content of the call as part of the introduction process and as a way to uncover issues that are important to members
  • Limit the length of presentations to 15 minutes or breaking them up with more interactive segments
  • Use facilitation techniques adapted from face to face meetings, like fishbowl activities to model problem-solving and other process-oriented situations.

Whatever the culture of your community, customs and norms will emerge and change as it coalesces and matures. At the heart of these cultural issues is the ability to recognize them, appreciate them, and negotiate them.

Care to Share?

What are some of your favorite facilitation techniques for your community of practice? How do they reflect your community’s cultural norms and goals?

Learn More:

Conference call practices to generate knowledge and record learning by John D. Smith and Shawn Callahan with comments from Madelyn Blair

Facilitating to Lead! Leadership Strategies for a Networked World by Ingrid Bens, published by Jossey-Bass, 2006. See especially pp. 86-90.

Good practice for phone-based CoP teleconferences by Kate Pugh

Telephone Conference Call Tips by Nancy White

Quaint Question

Wednesday, December 19th, 2007

I volunteer for a local “reading buddy” literacy project. The program is sponsored by a community affiliate of a larger, North American organization. The umbrella organization recently sent out an online survey to all of their volunteers. The purpose of the survey is to “help us identify new strategies, resources and programs to strengthen the volunteer experience at [our local affiliates] in the future.” So far, so good.

Here’s where I get stuck:

Which of the following best describes your employment status?

  • Employed Full time (35 or more hours of employment per week)
  • Employed Part time (less than 35 hours of employment per week)
  • Retired
  • Not currently in paid workforce

In this day and age, with different ways of thinking about work and volunteering and time, I have to wonder: how useful is this question and its delimited responses? Especially if we are looking for new ways of connecting with potential volunteers and understanding more about the volunteer communities with which we engage?

Do the assumptions implicit in this question still hold? I suspect not. Certainly not based on my personal experiences. One of the reasons I have the flexibility and privilege to participate in the literacy program because I am a freelance consultant. I also work on a number of projects that are not paid positions. I do not know anyone who works the actual amount of time they are employed for – most people I know don’t make those distinctions, for better or worse. Even retirement means different things to different people.

I think I understand what the organization is trying to uncover by asking this question, but the possible responses are based on an old paradigm. This way of thinking, which might yet have some utility, does not provide a larger, more informative picture for what the organization could really learn.

Which brings me back to this cross post with its shout out to Doonesbury:

What Did *You* Do Today? How We Define Our Work.

WebnRs R Us

Tuesday, December 18th, 2007

A webinar is not just a presentation. Given the right conditions, it can become a highly interactive conversation with multiple tracks with the featured presenter as the focal point.

Here is a very rough break down of the types of chat messages that emerged from the Daniel Pink webinar sponsored by EdTechConnect on December 13, 2007.

  • General greetings to the group
  • Inquiries and responses about who is online (educators, business people, librarians, affiliations to host organization, where from, etc.)
  • Queries, responses, sharing tips regarding the webinar technology (noting an echo, tacit, pointing out modeling webinar norms (some of which might be explicitly communicated, others more tacitly), etc.
  • Small talk, schmoozing
  • Making professional connections, sharing contact information for follow up conversations
  • Acknowledging social connections, greeting individuals
  • Side comments and social commentary on presenter’s stories
  • Direct comments on presenter’s stories
  • Joking around
  • Facilitator providing feedback about social norms, where to send comments, etc.
  • Promoting own work and other resources
  • Sharing ideas for integrating technology into education, “hacks” i.e., how to transform a wii into a smartboard device
  • Comments on the mechanics of the chat itself
  • Sharing hypotheses related to presentation
  • Receiving feedback on hypotheses related to presentation
  • Sharing stories about own work environment related to ideas in presentation
  • Expressing challenges related to presentation ideas and their relevance to individual’s professional settings
  • Comments on state of the profession
  • Submitting questions to group
  • Submitting questions to presenter
  • Comments that cross-reference tweets and blog entries from earlier in the day; continuing conversations / acknowledgments
  • Twittering about webinar
  • Setting up Google Doc for group to create notes
  • Talking about practice
  • Talking about philosophy of learning / teaching
  • Sharing links of interest based on web chat topics
  • Commenting on each other’s comments
  • Private chats that were invisible to the public

Community-At-Large: A Symphony in Pink

Monday, December 17th, 2007

I recently attended an EdTechConnect webinar featuring Daniel Pink hosted by Discovery Education. Daniel Pink was articulate, personable, and generous. The focus of the webinar was his book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, for an audience of educators. At one point, the webinar appeared to have close to 200 participants.

What struck me were the multiple conversations and multiple media at work during the webinar. In this case, it was particularly intriguing, since there appeared to be a core group of participants in attendance who are highly expressive and active over multiple platforms (blogs, wikis, Twitter, Google Docs, Skype, Second Life, good old-fashioned email, etc.). In addition to the webinar, which was held on WebEx, 29 attendees contributed to a collaborative page on Google Docs that was created by one of the participants while the webinar was in session.

A Few Observations

Participation – the focus was on Daniel Pink and his ideas. There was visibility and interaction among members of the group in the webinar’s chatroom. At the same time that Pink was presenting, participants were presenting their own ideas, responses, and resources.

These events provide extensions of participants’ communities. People who are not in that loop, or who are less public participants, however, may have a different sense of the types of community exhibited at these events.

Event Artifacts

Social norms – The webinar was a place for newbies to learn about social norms on webinars, some of which carry over into other venues, like Twitter. For example, learning a social convention for responding to individuals in a “crowded room” by using @ in front of their names.

Food for Thought

Does this activity / event represent some kind of community or an extension of relationships? If so, how would one describe it? Is there a taxonomy of communities or relationships in which this can be placed? There were core members of a larger, less situated community at work here; I could identify leaders in education, people who engage in multiple platforms, like blogs, twitter, Second Life, etc.

In this case, participants convened around a particular event. The event was free-standing, but it also took on a life of its own across different venues. I suspect that people who attended this event viewed it not as a singular episode but, rather, as part of a greater whole – in terms of professional learning communities, professional learning plans, networking, sharing an activity with colleagues and friends, and more.

Assistance Please: Stirring the Pot

Sunday, December 2nd, 2007

I am researching the use of Facebook and blogs in support of communities of practice and would appreciate your assistance.

Specifically, I am looking for examples of how organizations use Facebook to support their work. I am also interested in identifying examples of community blogging as an activity of communities of practice.

Many thanks for your thoughts!