I am still not sure about Communities of Practice and I am not sure Affinity Spaces are the answer. The thing is that many of us have used the Communities of Practice model to understand online communities but there is a real probem with notions of membership and boundaries etc which are really not an accurate descriptin of the dynamics which seem at once intensive and dynamic. Temporary coherences. Affinity spaces, first talked about by Gee I think, (and building on his idea of the semiotic domain) evolved as a term around online gaming, but again I m am not sure it is properly transferrable as a model for non gaming online groups, although I, like Michelle Knobel, have also used this term.
In this book, Massey talks about ‘constellatons of temporary coherences’ in regard to groups of youth meeting - but is not talking about cyberspace, but I think it could be applied to online groups and want to think more on this.
In Flickr people belong to lots of different groups; the whole site does not really constitute a coherent community it is a series of groups.
Individuals in the groups interact with each other and some belong to numbers of groups where they meet again.
They have in jokes, interests and conversations which are thematically dropped and picked up again.
Individuals carry across specific identities and social histories. These are shown multimodally in words and images and in the associations they trace across the groups.
Individuals seem to develop online identities and coherences.
they teach each other.
Some groups are VERY popular and there are some definite stars on the board;movers and shakers who influence.
There are some individuals who start groups which no one joins.
I have seen one big argument and this I think is an unusual occurence although I have spotted this too.
Finally there is this fab new thing I have been invited to join. The Flat Stanley Project is a very exciting idea in my opinion and there is also a blog to go with it.
So it is an example of online learning collaboration across generations. I think itis antastic the way adults are invited to help in the education of children in this way..
I like thinking through these ideas. Each time in write about it myself i take a different spin on it because the spaces are bound differently in virtual contexts. Movement between groups is fluid, transitory, sometimes migratory according to mood and memory… and existance within groups is multiple, with multiple conversations occurring in multiple spaces. Even though I don’t go and role-play with the kids in their Ancient Heroes of China strategy gaming forum, I feel like I understand enough of their semiotic domain to represent it to others, because I’ve had previous experiences in similar types of spaces. I think the notion of transferrence is possibly useful here - because the kids can play a game or watch a movie in one site, they can connect quickly and meaningfully at a new site because of transferrence. But the true affinity groups I think only happen when the kids go exploring together and make sense of their explorations through what I call their “base” site. Movements in and out of other affinity groups is a complex mapping task. What makes it moore complex is when one of the kids says to you “she’s hitting on me and I don’t like it so I am going to pretend to kill myself and come back as somebody else and not talk to her again”. He wanted to maintain home base but without quite so much of the affinity.
I find it fascinating. So much to say about it though!!
Comment by Anya — May 20, 2005 @ 5:29 pm
(oh the comment worked! Yay! I meant the kid said he was killing his CHARACTER off - nothing morbid. Though death of a character also brings a strange sense of loss for the community)
Comment by Anya — May 21, 2005 @ 4:05 am
(and maybe its also about intertextuality!) This was a very stimulating post J :>
Comment by Anya — May 21, 2005 @ 4:07 am
OOOh yes don’t worry, I knew you meant it was about killing the character!!
The affinity space / Community of Practice thing is pretty much exercising my brain at the minute as I am not sure that either of these fit all the communities I see. Gee’s description of affinity spaces is so well delineated and I am not sure our group of bloggers fits into his categories.
But anyway, about the comments facility, I have to check them and moderate each one.I am trying to work out how to set the site up so that all comments are immediately accepted.
(I remember you had this trouble at first.)
Comment by blogtrax — May 21, 2005 @ 11:48 am
Hooray.
Have now sorted out the comments facility!!
Comment by blogtrax — May 21, 2005 @ 11:57 am
Oh and btw, am glad you enjoyed the post as I am now going to plan my presentation about Flickr for this conference
Comment by blogtrax — May 21, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
That sounds exciting! WIll you do any form of visual analysis or are you focussing on the community aspects?
Comment by Anya — May 22, 2005 @ 4:39 pm
Very good point. I think really it is mainly about learning communities BUT the learning focus is on the way people are developing / learning about visual literacy.
Comment by blogtrax — May 22, 2005 @ 4:54 pm