There's something to be said about simplicity. In a week when we have been asked to synthesize our knowledge of three complex, everchanging, highly contextualized themes [community, design, identity], and how they relate, connect, or complicate each other, we chose to represent our understanding in three simplified models. We do not want to imply that the interaction between these three themes is a simple, circular process; rather, we think simplification can establish an anchor from which we can analyze the complexity of the interaction.
Each of these models are shown below. We briefly explain each model and provide justification for its construction based on our readings from this and previous weeks. Our purpose is to propose three of the infinitely-possible lenses of how to understand the interaction between community, design, and identity within learning spaces.
One way to read this model is "Communities form out of shared Identities and are reflected by Design that organize the Communities." Alternately, one could read this model as "Designs that organize the Communities form out of shared Identities and are reflected by Designs." In either case, we would like to emphasize that communities can be constructed due to a shared identity. We realize that the process of community formation is highly contextualized and -- as pointed out in class -- not always an intentional process, but we believe it is one way a community can come together.
Part of Wenger's Social Learning Theory portrays identity as a means of "talking about how learning changes who we are and creates personal histories of becoming in the context of our communities" (1998, pg. 5). Wenger argues that, through social interaction, we create our identities that, in turn, creates our community space. In her manuscript, boyd (forthcoming) discusses the two origin stories of Facebook and MySpace. MySpace formed as a place for indie and hip-hop music fans to share their enthusiasm, share music, and discuss their shared interest. To this day, it has largely retained that identity, primarily being used by urban youth. Facebook's origin story is different; it emerged out of a shared identity, being a Harvard student, and eventually spread to only include those who identified as Ivy League students. According to boyd, these identities -- which formed and shaped the online communities -- are salient today. The prevalence of white and Asian youth on Facebook and black and Latino youth on MySpace illustrates this divide.
Regarding the role of design, boyd (forthcoming) writes: "Just as physical spaces and tastes are organized around and shaped by race and class, so too are digital environments" (p. 3). We believe this is why such emphasis has been placed on prioritizing digital environments that are "exciting" for the typical web designer and not necessarily accessible for a larger group of people. Designers create what they know and like -- which, in itself, isn't a bad thing -- but it may not be an inclusive environment. Often, inclusion and exclusion is based around the users' constructed identity within that space.
Synthesis #2 can also be read in multiple ways. One way is, "Identities are constructed by Communities and are organized, shaped, or enabled by Designs that represent their Identities". Alternately, "Designs that represent [their] Identities are constructed by participation in Communities and are organized, shaped, and enabled by Designs." This model is slightly different than model one in that it suggests identities can be constructed by communities, and design can organize and shape people's communities that reflect those identities.
Wenger argues that learning "is the vehicle for the evolution of practices and the inclusion of newcomers [formation of community] while also (and through the same process) the vehicle for the development and transformation of identities" (Wenger, 1998, p. 13). boyd talks about how digital communities (myspace, for example) constructs identity (e.g. MySpace is for 'ghetto' people; Facebook is not), and even how division in physical spaces (e.g. students of color may all be in one track of classes together, white kids are in another) also constructs identity. Through Discourse Analysis, Gee (1999) illustrates how the language of a community (i.e. discourses) can be deconstructed to represent a speaker's personality and values (i.e identity). Communicating new knowledge through language enacts a specific representation. At the same time, the words we use shape what we are able to transfer to others. In each of these examples, the authors suggest that involvement within communities and community spaces can shape, influence, transform a person's identity -- both a person's own perception of identity and others' perception of that person's identity.
In this model, we also draw upon the work of Pea (1992), who argues that design is what makes life easier for us; it fulfills our desires. In this sense, design is both a reflection of identity -- it represents the desires and values of the community -- and a organizer of communities. He relates this to the notion of distributed intelligence which is the way in which we use a design (or recrafting of the environment) of multiple affordances to accomplish tasks. Gee's focus on discourse includes discussion on how spaces are designed with patterns that influence/organize how one interacts in that space. When discussing the "real Indian", ideas explored are "always in the context of actual situations" (p.25).
Our final model is one that could easily be seen as a 'cop out' model. It does imply that each theme interacts and influences with each other equally; however, it also may be our most accurate depiction. The interaction between the three themes is certainly not a clean, simple, circular process or the same in every context. We believe community, design, and identity influence, change, and demand things of each other in non-linear, often spontaneous ways. That being said, once in a while, we believe it is important that we 'hang our hat' on a particular conception (as represented by models 1 & 2) to anchor our learning.
In thinking about your visuals, I lean towards #1 and #2 because they seem to get at more of the emergent qualities that shape communities, identities, and designs. As you point out, parsing specific boundaries between community, identity, and design is a rather tricky endeavor and perhaps a bit illusory given that there’s so much cross-pollination among the three. In #1, you depict communities as being formed out of shared identities. There’s a lot of strength in this perspective because it seems to me that as different people come together to form a community that there are often certain characteristics that bubble up to the top and consequently, give that group a recognizable identity. For example, they are Mac users because aesthetics is something that is substantially meaningful to them. But as I think about the term, “shared identity,” I wonder what exactly that means. Does it mean we can delineate boundary lines between where identity is shared and where it is exclusively with the individual? Does it matter?
Regarding #2, I’m drawn to the way in which you depict the Design giving coherence (however that may be defined) as it relates to whatever artifact that a group may create. Ideally, in a vibrant community, there’s all sorts of debates and discussions whose content and direction are shaped by the broad spectrum of individual backgrounds, but ultimately the group is aiming to produce some kind of artifact (even if it’s just cognitive) and and a design represents the group’s effort to translate their thinking into a coherent whole.
I think that I prefer synthesis #3. Thinking in terms of Wenger, as one learns through participation in a community, they form an identity, but can also shape the community and thus future identities generated from the community. Perhaps the equilibrium does not have the arrows point in opposite directions of equal magnitude, and that identity is more shaped by community then individual identity shapes community. I do agree with the negotiation of design with community and community shaping design. Again, I don't know if we always consider the practices of communities when designing learning spaces, so in reality, perhaps the arrows are in opposite directions but unequal in influence. I think the same argument can be made with design and identity. Anyway, I really like the schematics. I don't think that #3 is necessarily a cop-out in my mind. How do you think we could incorporate Discourse into your synthesis diagrams? Do you see Gee's thoughts on Discourse being synonymous with Wenger's thoughts on participation within a community of practice? I've been struggling with the comparison and contrasting of the two frames of thought.
I agree with your assessment of the highly contextualized relationships we are exploring. However, I hesitate to refer to your third model as a 'cop-out'. Perhaps there are other ways to visualize the relationships among community, identity, and design, but they are complex, and I think to a large extent constitute and are constituted by each other.
Question - In model 1, how are communities 'reflected by design'? I'm not sure I follow this point. Do you see a starting point for this model (or the others)? Or is this a chicken/egg issue? As we consider the learning implications for disruptive technologies, where might you position the entry point for learning spaces?
Model 2 question - Wenger also speaks about communities of practice that signify opposition or discord pointing out that communities do not always reflect harmony. How might this notion affect your model? Or how might Rogers' discussion of diffusion and heterophily play in?