Third and Final Blog

The article, Civil Society and Cyber Society: the Role of the Internet in Community Associations and Democratic Politics asks the question, “Does the internet implicate the relationship between civil society and cyber society and online and offline democratic interactions with the political system?” I will attempt to answer this question for my last blog from class readings and additional research that I have conducted.

According to Agre, “political activities on the internet are embedded in larger social processes”, and the internet itself is only one element of media (314). This idea coincides with many other articles I have read, which generally state that the internet tends to reinforce the same social and economic structures of political practices used offline. So, using the internet as a political tool is not necessarily a significant shift or change in the political realm, but rather it acts to complement political communities and activities.

For instance, Barack Obama used the internet to supplement his presidency campaign in the United States of America. By using interactive Web 2.0 tools he advertised to his voters, organized his supporters, fundraised and communicated with his constituents (Miller, 2009). One can find many different YouTube videos from his campaign, which for him, was a source of free advertising. In the New York Times, it stated that, YouTube is “more effective than using advertising on television because viewers choose to watch or receive them from a friend instead of having their television show interrupted” (Miller, 2009). This is notable because only one instrument is used in the process whereas multiple instruments are used for radio or television. One can see that it is advantageous to use the internet in a political campaign or community and that it does indeed connect civil and cyber society.



Should we be concerned about the digital divide if the internet does implicate the online and offline democratic interactions with the political system? I would argue that yes, we should be concerned. The interactivity and community development that is at the core of internet campaigns significantly depends upon access to the vehicle, whether it be the computer, cell phone or blackberry, that is being used to communicate information. Thus, if everybody had access to technology that provided an internet service (and was also techno-literate), there would be no problem to connect with the current information provided on political platforms or whatever the topic may be. The digital divide; however, is an impossible game of catch-up for marginalized groups because as soon as the gap between these individuals and privileged groups lessen, there is a new divergence in the divide. In the political realm, I do believe that the divide will increase stratification in political participation and have several implications. Can you name a few?

Some more interesting links...

1. http://www.youtube.com/user/barackobamadotcom?blend=3&ob=4 (Obama Videos)

2. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/ (New York Post Article)

3. http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/11/05/eight-reasons-the-internet-has-changed-politics-forever (8 Reasons the Internet has Changed Politics Forever)

Blog Number Two

Social informatics, trust, community development....how does it all relate?



I did not enjoy the article, Learning about Information Technologies and Social Change: The Contribution of Social Informatics by Rob Kling, until the last paragraph when he stated, “social informatics research also investigates intriguing new social phenomena that emerge when people use information technology, such as the ways in which people develop trust in virtual teams”.

This point is notable because as a human resources professional, I seek new techniques for corporate development. I tend to wonder if new trends, like virtual teams, would be a competitive advantage, or rather, a disadvantage. I learned a little bit about these teams in my class, organizational behaviour, and am in the process of learning more about their strengths and weaknesses at work. In this blog, I will discuss what I do know about virtual teams and see if I can’t relate this term back to our class discussions and the readings.



Virtual teams can be defined as, “teams whose members operate across space, time, and organizational boundaries and are linked through information technologies to achieve organizational tasks” (McShane, 263). So basically, like a conventional team, the virtual team will interact and influence each other to align their goals with the organization’s objectives.

Dissimilarly, virtual teams are separated geographically and are highly dependent upon information technologies, whereas conventional teams may use information technology, but are typically located in one area and meet face-to-face several times a day.

Why do you think virtual teams are a new trend? I can think of a few reasons, but please, if you have any other ideas, let me know. First, I would argue that today, information technologies are more common. Computer connectivity has strengthened bonds among individuals in different locations via the internet, intranet, instant messaging, forums, social communities and video conferencing, making communication and coordination easier. Secondly, the economy has shifted from manufacturing to knowledge, which permits one to access ideas better. These ideas and information tend to equate to a competitive advantage within an organization. Lastly, I could never leave out globalization. With business abroad, companies must be able to communicate with team members and form alliances with local organizations so as to increase support and productivity.

Can these virtual teams be considered a community? I don’t necessarily think that the team is a community, but rather, the group of people are a team within a community. This raises a second question. How would a company design a high performance virtual team so as to support the overall community, aka the corporation?

Well, I said before that several communication channels would be of utmost importance so as to offset the lack of face-to-face communication and non-verbal cues, as well as to coordinate work tasks. Those tasks would probably have to be very structured rather than complex or ambiguous. The team would probably have to be smaller and cyber literate since information technology is the main form of communication. Virtual team members would probably also require greater cross-cultural awareness to enhance the cohesiveness of the team.

Virtual teams may be a competitive advantage, but further research has revealed that while initially trust within these teams is high, it is very fragile and temporal. Sherida defined trust as, “an expectation that others will behave in a predictable way and a willingness to be vulnerable during the trust situation”. She asserted that there are three types of trust, which are: dispositional/history-based trust, rule and role-based trust, and identity-based trust. Trust in virtual teams is fragile because it is based on assumptions rather than established experience. Any violation of trust will decrease faith in the team. In any group clear communication (including the non-verbal cues) is important and thus this would be particular challenge for virtual teams.



Clearly social informatics, trust and community development are interconnected. A virtual team is a specific example of social informatics, since social informatics is the study of the design, uses and consequences of information technologies that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts. While a team may not exactly be a community, its development does include, “social solidarity, material production and consumptions (at times), law making and symbolic processes of collective experience and cultural meaning” (Fernback, 2007). Any team formed within an organization is for corporate development and improvement. However, a virtual team’s trust is challenged and thus the question remains, is a virtual team a competitive advantage?

Some links for you to enjoy...

1.Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams (Article) http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html

2.Fragile Trust in Virtual Teams Threatens Business Performance – Research Identifies New Rules for Communication (Article) http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2006/prod_091906.html

3.Virtual Teams (Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrN8PjZXkPM

4.Virtual Teams (Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1NyIBiYuFQ&feature=related (Very Interesting)

Blog Number One

January 7th, 2009 came and went quickly. It was the first day that I officially started my masters program. I walked into Sherida’s class, AEC1131H S: The Internet, Adult Education and Community Development, and didn’t know what to expect. I was a bit nervous returning to university and quickly realized that while I have some good ideas, my peers have even better ideas and interesting thoughts regarding the different forms of technology.

That first class was typical in that we went over the outline, had our questions answered and did a bit of an introduction. Sherida showed us different internet sites that would be useful. She mentioned that on delicious, you could use a social bookmarking tool to store, organize and search different web pages. I had never heard of this before and found a quick video on social bookmarking that I’d like to share with you. Just go to the video at, http://www.commoncraft.com/bookmarking-plain-english.

The weekend after that class, I read the articles in preparation for the second class, only to find that each article reiterated the discussions that we had in the first class regarding internet usage. I liked the simplicity of these articles and the fact that we, as a group, stated similar uses for the internet in everyday life.

In the second class, we talked about technological determinism and the social construction of technology. While I would agree more with the fact that “human’s shape technology to meet their needs”, I would argue that a common critique for both paradigms is the fact that the relationship between technology and society cannot be measured separately. Rather, I believe it is a complex connection, a synergistic relationship, where there is co-dependence and co-influence. It has occurred since the emergence of humankind. For instance, think of the telephone. When it was first invented one had to communicate with an operator to make a call. Next, rotary dial phones were available, which shifted to the touch tone phone, which evolved into a cell phone. Each telephone became more modern as society developed. Society; however, depended upon the modernization of the telephone in order to advance in the corporate world, maintain and improve personal relationships and be secure in the state of an emergency. Would you agree?

In the second class we also talked about the concepts of dystopian, utopian and syntopian. Sherida mentioned the Syntopian project, but didn’t have quite enough time to go into detail about it. I was interested in learning more about this project and found a good website, http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/ci/cmcs/director/projects/syntopia/index.htm, which explains the project. Basically it describes the trends in access, political and civic involvement and social interaction. It is worth the read.

I suppose this would be a form of self-directed learning. I intentionally read articles about the syntopian project to better understand it. Speaking of learning, I will never forget the time when incidental learning occurred at my horseback riding lesson. I was young, approximately 12 or 13, and the individual preceding my lesson, was jumping. I observed his movements with the reins and the shift of his body weight while riding. When I mounted my horse, I asked my instructor if I could give it a try and she agreed. Without her instruction I performed the jumps seamlessly and received acknowledgement on my skill. I did not have any intention of learning how to jump, as I was a western rider, but I was conscious of the fact that I did learn something from watching the individual preceding my lesson.

Twitter is also a type of informal learning. My blog is getting too long so check out this site, http://internettime.ning.com/forum/topics/656824:Topic:6381. It has an excellent example of informal learning with the first reply to the discussion.

The first group did an amazing job on their presentation. They asked pertinent questions to their topic and thoroughly explained informal learning. Good job! This week, on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, Megan and I will be presenting our topic on literacy, cyberliteracy and the digital divide. At first this topic seemed daunting, but as I sifted through the information I am quite excited to share what I have learned. I will leave you with an interesting video on the digital divide and two questions that we may be asking you in class. You can find the video at, http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=B6AQv2l6UsM and ponder the questions:

1) What government policies should be implemented to increase literacy?
2) How can educators use technology to truly make a difference in society?

Thanks guys :)