“Networking
is establishing and maintaining informal relationships with people whose acquaintance or friendship
could bring advantages such as job or business opportunities… Networking does
not mean “using” people for the information you hope
they have. It means building relationships so that you feel comfortable asking
for information, advice, and referrals.”
The latter part of the statement, credited to Penn State
Alumni Association, recognises that those seeking to advance their career
prospects through networking often enter it with an end game to obtaining a
job. The article suggests that this is incorrect and that individuals often
don’t look to utilise it until they are looking for jobs when they should be
implementing it as part of their everyday practice. Admittedly, this has been
in part my own view until recently. However, after studying the third reader
for the module and through extended reading I am learning the mode of
networking is in fact a lot more nuanced than previously thought.
Cooperation
Political scientist Robert Axelrod is one of the leading
researchers on the area of cooperation. After examining its association with
‘Game Theory’, he identified the potential for bringing in other theorists for
an experiment he called the ‘The Project’ as titled in his article (2006).
These theorists would submit computerised adaptations of the renowned
‘prisoner’s dilemma’ concept in an attempt to determine, based on a previous
history of cooperation, whether or not it is worth continuing with negotiations
with another party. Axelrod reveals the program dubbed as “TIT FOR TAT” as the
eventual and continued winner upon multiple entries in several tournaments. The
aforementioned is the act of returning the same amount of cooperation as was
received for another. After its initial successes however, Axelrod began to
question and argue as to whether the approach was a sustainable strategy for
long-term relations and developed an evolutionary perspective. He posed a
series of questions, two of which I saw to be extremely valuable;
“how can a
potentially cooperative strategy get an initial foothold in an environment which is predominantly noncooperative? … under what conditions can such a strategy, once fully established among a
group of people, resist invasion by a
less cooperative strategy?” (Axelrod, 2006)
The former quote refers to the exchange of fair information
between individuals in an environment where competition is prevalent, and the latter
being the breakdown of such a strategy after extended use and information
becomes too widely spread and therefore of lesser use to the person who
originally imparted with it. This is when the idea of ‘defecting’ forms, the
idea that knowledge can be retained to better serve an individual rather than
sharing it with other parties whilst they in turn will pass on information to
receive nothing in return. The vice versa can happen or, even more damaging,
both parties fail to cooperate and defect. In the case of the latter, it is
likely the transaction has not been carried out at all. This can be put to
better explanation through context of human interaction. While I would say I
don’t currently use networks well enough to say I account for a lot of these occurrences
I could certainly say I have been at times in the past selfish in the amount of
content I have received, consumed and not reciprocated.
I can recall experiences not directly related to my
networking methods today, but whilst training at college. I felt hesitant at
times to impart information to my peers for knowing they may look to implement
it in their own work. My initial reasons for this thinking were because I felt
that my hard work should not be shared with others and they should look to do
the same if they wish to achieve a similar. Another reason was because I felt
my skill set was individual and what worked for me would not necessarily work
for others. I still believe in the second view, however the first I now look at
as quite a destructive way of thinking. This was probably brought on by the
enclosed space in which I spent three years with students who I would be
competing against upon graduating, as well as everyone else already out there.
It may have shown a flair of immaturity in my age as well. I essentially took a
selfish decision in keeping information for myself, something I am confident I
am not solely accountable for doing. These are product of another
practitioner’s work explored by Axelrod in his own, that of Charles Darwin’s infamous
theory of evolution, the idea of ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the
fittest’. I will say, however, that my opinion on the matter changed in due
course before I graduated. Since leaving college I have found plenty of
occasions that have provoked or benefitted from my passing of knowledge to
others. This has been noticeable in events such as returning to my dramatic
society to help with a current production they were staging or teaching some of
the children in the cast of a fringe production I was involved in last year.
They benefit from my expertise whilst I from exercising and demonstrating
techniques to a new, enthused audience that hunger and show an aptitude for
furthering their current knowledge. In this case, both individuals are met with
reciprocation and so the “TIT FOR TAT” ideology for cooperation has been
fulfilled and proved a success.
Affiliation
Affiliation, a concept explored within social psychology,
deals with a much more immediate form of networking; the need to form personal
relationships with other people. Richard Crisp and Rhiannon Turner describe
“our tendency to seek out others and form close relationships is an inherited
trait that helps us to survive and reproduce by providing us with a network of
support that will help us when we are in need.” (2010) I believe it is a
requirement for all individuals, not just those directly connected with the
arts industry. In whatever profession or walk of life, we often find ourselves
looking to others for counsel or inspiration.
Affiliation can exist on differing levels, however, which is
furthered explored by Crisp and Turner. They cite the ‘privacy regulation
theory’ (Altman, 1975) and its argument for the bounds of privacy being
adjusted as and when it suits the individual. “We also operate by an optimization principle, where we try to
align our desired level of contact with our actual level of contact with
others. If we have too little contact, we feel isolated, but if we have too
much contact, we feel crowded.” (Crisp and Turner, 2010) I can instantaneously
relate to this argument in relevance to my own professional practice. Right
now, for example, I am experiencing a rather robust schedule in my week-to-week
activities. I have auditions, film-work, my regular job, work for the BAPP
course to keep up with, as well as a couple of other projects to work around.
As can be imagined, I am therefore dealing with a variety of different parties
on a daily basis in comparison to a time immediately after graduating when so
many networks were not available to me. Although these are networks by choice,
there is a natural feeling and hunger for space when juggling so many
activities. On the other hand, I have experienced periods of draught in my
career thus far (as I’m sure is common with many performers) and in these
circumstances I have often felt closed off to others. Whilst I heard from of
peers at college gaining jobs and progressing ahead of myself, I would often
question why the same was not occurring for myself. It is all relevant, of
course, as some had access to networks that I was yet to and that in fact
talent and skill only goes so far before an administrative role needs to be
assumed, something I admittedly neglected for a little while out of fear for a
lack of knowledge of it. As relationships with individuals and involvement with
networks grow, my interest to maintain and develop them further does also.
Further research has been carried out against the privacy
regulation theory and social affiliation model in that they do not recognise
different networks of people who characteristically depend or don’t so on the
aforementioned. Although I have included my own experience and stressed the
importance of these theories in relation to my own profession, I can understand
that others need not so much for them in their own livelihoods. Carl Jung
(1975), an early established practitioner in the field of psychology,
identified people being inherent with introverted or extroverted personalities
from birth. Others have expanded on the theory. Tieger and Barron-Tieger (1995)
went on to strengthen the differentiations in character by identifying
behavioural traits that separate them.
Extraverts
·
Focus attention outward
·
Enjoy a variety of tasks
·
Seek out and need other people
·
Work at a rapid pace
·
Need to talk about their ideas to think them through
Introverts
·
Focus attention inward
·
Consider things fully before responding
·
Enjoy tasks that require concentration
·
Work best on one project at a time
·
Work at a careful, steady pace
“Everyone’s
personality fall onto side or the other…
But’s important to keep in mind: everyone
uses both sides if each dimension – people are primarily Extraverts (or Introverts, etc.) but not exclusively one or the other.” (Tieger
and Barron-Tieger, 1995)
The above quote paints the same picture I share in that all
aspects of an individual’s behaviour is not set in black or white. In my own
practice, I call upon different aspects of both sides whether directly related
to my skill set as a performer or as an overall practitioner. For example, I
will research and study for a role, work on the physicality and take time to
develop characteristics by looking inwardly before transferring them outside of
myself to assess how my findings relate amongst others. This division of work
also informs my focus whilst in rehearsal, allowing me to be attentive in
finding new information in the moment. The same happens with my work outside of
this, including the BAPP course. I tend to spend time on my own away from other
distractions working through tasks before uploading them and engaging with
other students in discussing ideas and concepts.
Social Constructionism
“Objectivism
– the notion that truth and meaning reside in their objects independently of any conscious… has
certainly come under heavy attack and constructionism is very much part of the
artillery brought against it.” (Crotty, 2005, p.42)
The above quote underlies the effect caused by external
influence of opinion, the concept known as ‘social constructionism’. The term
just mentioned is described as a process where individuals makes sense of the
world around us based on other’s opinion before receiving first-hand
experience. In relation to networking this subjective view point can often form
predetermined opinions about other groups, limiting or eliminating an
opportunity for engagement. Crotty later argues that an individual’s
preconception as to how the world functions is in fact often defeated by
concrete knowledge upon experiencing it. He goes on to strengthen this
argument;
“What
constructionism claims is that meanings are constructed by human beings
as they engage with the world they are interpreting. Before there were
consciousnesses on earth capable of interpreting the world, the world held
no meaning at all.” (Crotty, 2005, p. 43)
Crotty makes the case that if an individual were not able to
receive external analysis, preoccupying fears for groups would be non-existent.
With regards to my own practice, I have encountered many instances when the
opinion of others have formed my own, particularly in these early years of my
career and to some degree they continue to do so. I can vividly recall an
example that occurred in my third year of study at Urdang. Throughout the
course of this final year, a number of the students were selected to attend
various industry auditions. During this period however I, among others, was not
put forward for any of these that came available. I don’t say that
begrudgingly, however. I wasn’t naïve enough to be unaware of how casting works
and how much negotiation takes place before you even reach a panel for audition.
Meanwhile, it did mean that accounts being relayed by my peers were giving me a
second hand experience. From a lot of the information I was accumulating, I
began to gather a grandiose picture for what lied ahead and seeds of fear had
been planted before I had even graduated. Inevitably, I left college and did
indeed begin to experience auditions for myself. I learned that the picture I
had built in my mind was far greater than the actual process. I can, however,
find a more positive example of theory working in my studies for the BAPP
course. I sometimes question whether I am correctly identifying with concepts
and tasks presented. With such an integrated network as the BAPP provides, I am
able to assess this work perusing the existing work of fellow students and
opening dialogues about specific areas via blog commenting or campus and online
sessions. The two examples present varying levels of engagement from myself,
the first beginning with an external influence to then receive it for myself
and second of an opposite procedure. “The world is always already there”
(Crotty, 2005, p. 44) and it is my right to receive it so.
Connectivism
One of the ways George Siemens describes the idea of
connectivism is that learning is developed and tailored to fit their social
environment. Previous methods largely adopted have been ‘instructional’. Technology
today however has diluted the traditions of one-on-one tuition, between teacher
and student for example, and allowed for a much more diverse passage for the individual
to receive knowledge.
“The life
of knowledge was measured in decades. Today,
these foundational principles have been altered. Knowledge is growing
exponentially. In many fields the life of knowledge is now measured in months
and years.” (Siemens, 2004)
Siemens does recognise, however, that information so readily
available in such places as online spaces is not always beneficial to the
consumer and that “Knowledge that resides in a database needs to be connected
with the right people in the right context in order to be classified as
learning.” (Siemens, 2004) I see this on a regular basis in my own practice.
Now that I am not learning in an establishment as structured as school or
college, I must maintain skills and knowledge through other means. This isn’t
necessarily through independent reading or private acting or singing classes
either. Even auditions, as I have discovered in my reflective journal writing,
serve well for receiving new understanding. All the aforementioned examples refer
to a physical inception of networking and a principle of connectivism is that “Learning
may reside in non-human appliances.” (Siemens, 2004) I may choose to seek help
in my practice through means of online communities but the levels of knowledge
shared between myself and unknown parties will vary and could often lead to disappointing
results.
“In a knowledge
economy, the flow of information is the equivalent of the oil pipe in an industrial
economy… Knowledge flow can be likened to a river that meanders through the
ecology of an organization. In certain areas, the river pools and in other
areas it ebbs.” (Siemens, 2004)
Communities of Practice
This is a concept briefly covered in a previous blog post
preceding my study of professional networking. It is different from other approaches
in that it has been developed through the field of social science as opposed to
political like Axelrod’s theory suggests. It shifts focus away from potential
competitive and narcissistic behaviour alluding to in Axelrod’s theory on ‘cooperation’
by the individual and instead takes the approach that learning can be achieved
via social engagement, inviting others into the process and often referred to
as “social learning” (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
After taking time to browse the third reader before beginning
this task, I came across a statement that radically changed my perception, even
after speaking on it in the online session with regards to negotiating practice;
“they are social, they are informal and they are often connected with specific
social groups. They can be characterised as self-organising rather than
hierarchal.” (Reader 3, 2014) In my post regarding the online session, I
mentioned about my part-time retail job acting as an epicentre around
surrounding communities. “A community of practice is a set of relations among
persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential
and overlapping communities of practice.” (Lave and Wenger, 1991) I realised
that what made this particular network so central and integral to others was
not just its regularity to me, but the relationships I form with individuals
because of it. I would like to think I have good relations with my colleagues,
not to be exploited just for the purpose of allowing me to maintain my
activities in other networks. My management in particular are genuinely
interested in my activities and help as best they can to accommodate. This is a
rapport that is often not afforded in other networks I operate in due to their
fast-paced nature. Although they are of course unconscious of these positive
doings, their very involvement to participate is sharing an affect with other
networks. “Our sustained engagement within our communities of practice produce
learning, that is, social learning developed within, and between the members of
the community of practice.” (Reader 3, 2014)
In the years that ensued Lave and Wenger’s article, some
argued that the community of practice theory (made also by those came after) had
yet to account for being a negative and unpurposive. Andrew Cox argues “Wenger’s
conceptualisation of community is paradoxical in the history of that term. A
community of practice is not necessarily friendly or harmonious.” (Cox, 2005)
Wenger (1998) did later go on to discard his previous theory and rectify that
there was in fact an adverse side to it. He also cites “joint enterprise” as
part of communities of practice and that members continually renegotiate. In my
own practice I can relate to it in regards to working in an industry such as
the performing arts. Negotiations, such as audition processes, are often fickle
and delicate whilst being dealt amongst people who only surround the individual
for temporary time. They require something of the individual, and the
individual requires something of them. Admittedly this is not the case in every
circumstance, but on a basic level as described the ability to build a genuine
relationship is largely lost, therefore validating the theory.
Ethical Considerations for Networking
It is important for working professionals to be aware that
web 2.0 does dominate a large proportion of networking within communities of
practice. For a lot of individuals, it is the first point of contact for opening
a dialogue within communities. Therefore, it is important that ethical codes
are kept and regulated. While a variety of sources provides the individual with
an immense amount of detail, it is important that those who supply it are
respected for doing so. Wenger et al. (2009) states that “The framework of
community orientations is useful for thinking about the technology needs of a community
because it places technology in the context of the community’s patterns of
interest”. The BAPP course is again, another great example of this taking
effect. The students and course leaders connect and share opinions on ideas and
concepts through a tight-knit network but personal information that is logged
in reference by the individual, whether related to their professional practice
or not, must be treated with care. The creator has uploaded this information in
the hope that they have truthfully responded and given evidence in support of
the course. It is the job of the consumer, or in this case the creator’s peers,
to treat information enclosed with a level of courtesy. It makes for a
healthier and more positive networking experience.
My study on this task has arguably been the biggest
undertaking to date. I entered with a fairly primitive knowledge as to what constitutes
as networking but have come away confident in being able to differentiate how varying
elements inform professional practice. I was surprised to find examples of all
concepts discussed within my own practice, whether it be for positive or
negative impact. All sides exist and it is important not to shy away from what
is present but accept it and look to work with it.
Bibliography
Axelrod, R 2006 “The Evolution of Cooperation”, New York:
BasicBooks
Cain, S, et al. 2011 “Research Bytes” Strengths of Introvert and Extrovert Personality Types [online]
Available at: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstartsmartstaysafe.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FThe-Strengths-of-Introverts-and-Extroverts.pdf&ei=hLNLVa3MGs3fsASc4YC4Bw&usg=AFQjCNFeh3bxvFxFm4jr0cPjDcZl6xzHDw&sig2=3bAHzrZwEfsIrIgS2UZr0Q [Accessed 07 May. 2015]
Cox, A 2005 “What are communities of practice? A comparative
review of four seminal works” [online] Available at: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CFEQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F50817.pdf&ei=Z3ROVZevCsSN7AaVg4GgBg&usg=AFQjCNHv__gx0NnAWmWbco6XrjbuV6q4xQ&sig2=adph61d2V-TV5ETWPHHx8A
[Accessed 09 May.
2015]
Crisp, J, Turner, R, 2010, “Essential Social Psychology”, 2nd
Edition, London: SAGE Publications Ltd
Lave, J, Wenger, E, 1991, “Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral Participation”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Middlesex University, 2014, “Module 1 Reader 3”
Penn State Alumni Association, “Developing a Strong
Professional Network” [online] Available at: https://www.mne.psu.edu/PSNES/Networking.pdf [Accessed 06 May. 2015]
Siemens, G, 2004, “Connectivism” A Learning Theory for the Digital Age [online] Available at: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm [Accessed 09
May. 2015]
Tieger, Barron-Tieger, 1995, “Do What You Are” Personality Type Handbook – A Counselor’s
Guide for Using Personality Type To Understand and Counsel Students
[online] Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CFgQFjAN&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrews.edu%2Fservices%2Fcareer_services%2Fdocuments%2Fdwya.pdf&ei=EcBLVdPAGc3fsASc4YC4Bw&usg=AFQjCNELp881zDKbV0RMpZDOJMl2ghXLBg&sig2=4xWVf23lAZHi9RtzzU5Kaw [Accessed
07 May. 2015]
Wenger, E, 1998, “Introduction to Communities of Practice”
[online] Available at: http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/
[Accessed 09 May. 2015]
Wenger, E, White, N, Smith J, D, 2009, “Digital
Habitats” Stewarding Technology for Communities [online] Available at: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CCcQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fennuonline.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FDigitalHabitats-Chapter62.pdf&ei=44dOVdbWKqaR7Aby_oCwDg&usg=AFQjCNFhcoLCsZH-V1uAheo8giR5KD-JRA&sig2=uXncdP6_OdYm_f7kMcX9Sw
[Accessed 09 May. 2015]
