Module 1 - Task 3b: Theories Related to Networking

Before discussing and exploring several important practitioner’s views surrounding the concept, it is necessary to establish what professional networking is and differentiate between some common misconceptions.

“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”, 2^nd 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]