Comments on: III. Institution-Building

By: Anne Balsamo

Anne Balsamo — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:52:37 +0000

I recall the hype surrounding the emergence of the “virtual corporation” as post-fordist organizational form in the early 1990s. I think I remember reading an anlsyis by marxist organizational critics who noted the way in which the invocation of “virtuality” as a modality of organization was a technique for the further accumlation of capital to those in power….workers, who now were hired as “just-in-time” employees were definitely not benefiting from this new organizational form. Might be useful to cite some of this work just to suggest how the “virtual learning organization” you’re proposing avoids “hiding” costs.

By: rcsha

rcsha — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:58:04 +0000

What are institutions as mobilizing networks mobilizing people to do? While I like the plasticity of mobility, I worry that like the slipperiness of signs, slipperiness works both for and against one’s position.

By: MikeRoy

MikeRoy — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:51:36 +0000

I think it is hard to underestimate the force of the support provided by the traditional institutions involved in this work. While clearly this paper doesn’t propose the disbanding of all institutions of higher ed in favor of these informal, ad hoc, emergent entitities, the faculty who do this work are (I assume) largely paid their salaries and medical benefits and retirement contributions by these old-fashioned bricks and mortar (or bricks and clicks) schools that charge tuition, have endowments, etc, and therefore are powerful enablers of this work. The money matters.

By: Emcmahon

Emcmahon — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:32:44 +0000

I am particularly inspired by institutions that are not modeled after patriarchal hierarchies. Here are some alternative models for learning organizations that come to mind:
- New England Shaker communities
- computer/technical user groups like BSMUG, ACM SIGS’s
- MUDS/Moos
- yogic organizations like Syda yoga http://www.siddhayoga.org/
- quilting bees/circles

By: C Avery

C Avery — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:36:10 +0000

Cathy wrote regarding the goal of the definition:
“,,,to lay the emphasis on the human as opposed to the classical definitions of “institutions” that lay emphasis on rules of order, protocols, histories, codes of conduct, and explicitly non-human regulatory factors that attempt to maintain the unchanging, static, fixed, and dominating aspects of “institution” as opposed to behavior of individuals within the institutions.

Could it be that the closer one looks at even classical institutions the more they contain the features of mobilizing networks? That is, protocols and rules of conduct etc. may be developed within the competing political cultures in these classical institutions, and that change has its own dynamic? Thus it could be that all institutions are to some degree mobilizing networks, and the goal of this network is maximize mobilization (rather than minimize or adjudicate it as in classical institutions).

By: yardi1024

yardi1024 — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:40:20 +0000

I would remove the Web2.0 reference, it makes it feel more ephemeral and trendy rather than a necessary and helpful descriptor in defining an “institution”.

On the other hand, in context of Web2.0, I would be surprised at how little the user/student/administration/staff or more generally, just the influence of individual roles in how the “institution” evolves, are mentioned. It reads in a way that makes the institution feel very mechanical, which would be fine, except that the references to agency and social networks and such suggest that the role of the individual should be an integral part of the definition.

Just my two cents… -Sarita Yardi

By: Cathy Davidson

Cathy Davidson — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:54:46 +0000

Obviously “mobilizing networks” are meant to signify the people who mobilize and networks and to lay the emphasis on the human as opposed to the classical definitions of “institutions” that lay emphasis on rules of order, protocols, histories, codes of conduct, and explicitly non-human regulatory factors that attempt to maintain the unchanging, static, fixed, and dominating aspects of “institution” as opposed to behavior of individuals within the institutions. We were being cantankerous by thinking of the energies within institutions that work around, through, against, and outside those rules as being the more interesting feature, given that institutions (we believe) are constantly changing and that the rule-function of organizations is often to delimit and contain if not control that change. As with all good comments, this one gives us more inspiration to be overt about the inspiration for our definition, the human factors–individual and collective–that, to us, are more important than the law/rule/exempla/tradition factors of institutions. Thanks again

By: steve jones

steve jones — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 01:37:14 +0000

What I find somewhat troubling is that “institution” seems to be defined impersonally. Or, to put that another way: Where are the people? They seem implicit in this discussion, but also oddly removed.

By: steve jones

steve jones — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 01:31:27 +0000

Actually, I somewhat disagree. While I agree that libraries are important, it seems to me that students are finding their own spaces, offline as well as online, where they work together (cafeterias, lounges, computer labs, among them). What I strongly suggest is that there be sharp attention paid to the patterns of student traffic and gathering so as to try to mitigate the effects of student self-segregation, which all too often reproduces socioeconomic, racial and gender divisions already present in society. And, it should not be assumed that such self-segregation does not, will not or cannot take place online, too.

By: Cathy Davidson

Cathy Davidson — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:50:01 +0000

I agree completely. In the next iteration, libraries will play a greater role. One initiative in which HASTAC is involved is finding ways to have scholars, university presses, and libraries collaborate more. Right now, structurally, many university presses and libraries compete for resources, as if they were opposites rather than part of the whole process of knowledge production. Universities typically have different business models for libraries and presses—-but, without publishing (eletronic or paper isn’t the issue; the issues are refereeing and distribution), libraries have no role, nothing to archive and distribute. So in a next iteration we also want to think about innovative ways of putting together the different parts of the process of knowledge-production. The “Zip Car” system is one intriguing me now and I think there are economic models embedded in that that can be transported to universities. Another interest we have pursued in other forums and will also pursue here is interoperability, getting away from lock-box archives. This requires enormous work with IP issues as well as branding, turf, and other issues.

Thanks so much for your comment. It will jog us to turn our attention to this important addition for libraries, most surely, are mobilizing networks in a very precise and important way.