Knowledge Production: A Social Process

Jacques Derrida claims that the process of writing is fundamentally changed by the way we write. Marshall McLuhan on the other hand points to the medium as 'the massage', while German sociologist Niklas Luhmann opines 'man is not able to communicate; only communication is able to communicate'. Three different men, three different opinions. Nothing new about that. Or is there?



Academics define, debate and redefine modern society as it is, or how we as individuals interact with it continuously. Put into a 2011 context, does technology impact the content, delivery or consumption of content and if so how?



How has the process of knowledge production changed with the advent of social media? More specifically, what are the epistemic consequences of social software and information architecture?

WOH! Hang on! What the hec is social software?



Social software enables group interaction. A conduit to conversation. So information architecture must be the mechanics of delivery, yes? Well kind of...



Okay, so accepting the structure of things has changed, how have our conversations changed specifically? And by that I mean, how has our production of knowledge evolved?

From blackboards in lecture halls to death by powerpoint in the boardroom (or classroom!) to Skyping across timezones, the physical space and time of our conversations has evolved through and because of social media capability.

Blogs (just like this one!) and the rise of Wiki's sees the distribution of information and access to knowledge evolved both the classification of information (Luhmann), the way we engage with it and the dissemination process of information as knowledge beyond our local sphere.

McLuhan, Foucault and friends are a lot more accessible via youtube.com, wikipedia and the likes for the academic in training. And we know that what we see and read we need to take with a grain of salt (production and knowledge values are not expert) however, the entree to access is invaluable.

Schiltz, Truyen and Coppens(2007) in their article, Cutting the trees of knowledge: Social Software, Information Architecture and their epistemic consequences discuss how the nature of what is known seems to be changing. They use the example of a Linux expert and the expectations around what that in fact means. No longer is it assumed that the 'expert' contains all knowledge personally ('in his head'), although it is assumed that s/he has direct access to it, either via a social/ professional network or both.

Social networking systems and applications are changing the way we gather, store, disseminate and create knowledge. Aggregated suites of software such as Facebook.com and myspace.com are pervasive.

Why is it important in our production of knowledge again?


Social Media from Phil Guest on Vimeo.

The fundamental shift in communications practices is inter-related to the social network of the modern-day information society for which one way or another we can (and do! - Australian's are some of the largest consumers of social media in the world) democratically ENGAGE.

Another day, another academic adventure

To view spaces like Foucault, write like McLuhan, engage audiences like Shirky with the earning potential of Zuckerberg... now that's my idea of best practice.

In over a decade of corporate living, looking back through the eyes of academic inquiry, only now do I see the simplicity of the modern corporate structure embedded with the obstacles of the professional paradigm.

'I'm a marketer' according to my bio. It was only recently that I added 'wanna-be candlestick maker'. Why? Because, it's irrelevant.  In modern social spaces, human beings (IMHO) place too much emphasis on labels.

What's the point of title? Social structure.

The foundation of empire is heirarchy. Social and economic divides defined by title, reinforced in cultural practice and focused on the control of the masses.

What are media empires? Economic structures, defined by business practices responsible for the control/ audit of social information, consumed by the masses.

So what does that make professional sport...?

...A social heirarchy, defined by economic divides, reinforced by cultural practices and processes, refined by acceptable business practices and controls while being consumed by choice by the masses.

All sounds a little Marx-esque, doesn't it?! :)

What is Media?

Twenty-first century media is global, social, ubiquitous and cheap and has transferred to an amateur media environment where the 'audience' are now full participants (Clay Shirky, 2010). What Shirky is describing is a move away from traditional media and communications practice, that was structured around the principle of control.

Traditionally, key corporate messages were distributed from business via accepted channels (ie: fax, telephone, Beta tapes and more recently email) staffed by professional communicators and media production specialists towards a new media reality where the focus is on convening groups of supporters, not controlling them with a single crafted corporate message 'pushed' through the mainstream corporate media entities of print, broadcast and online.

While these professional journalism, media structures and corporate hierarchies still exist and prosper, thanks to technological advances in computers, mobile telephony and new media, they also exist alongside not only each other but new social media platforms which enable an entirely new style of conversation, consumption and participation.

According to Outlook, Australian's were the highest consumers of social media globally in 2009.
Neilsen's global media report released in July 2010, also reported Australian's had the highest global average of social media engagement at seven (7) hours per month, visiting communities of interest ie:sport and parenting sites.

So how do Australian's engage with social media in these communities?

I am currently researching both corporate, player and fan engagement in the online rugby community.

What I have discovered so far:

• ARU uses Facebook and Twitter as a sales and PR space. Fan engagement is juvenille although it incorporates into the design other platforms such as Youtube and yfrog.
• Of the state unions, the ACT Brumbies seem to be the only ones to understand the two-way (dialogic) and interactive nature of social media.
• Only a handful of high profile athletes Tweet (although every now and then a new one sneaks tentatively online and calls out for help - which is GREAT to see - because that's exactly what the social media platform is about: engagement. Although they tend to talk to each other or other high profile sporting professionals across the sports (league and swimming), rather than directly with fans.
• Hardly any players utilise facebook for individual 'brand me' or 'me inc' development
• Current management are not engaged, although past Australian coaches and management have / are developing strong online expert profiles and embracing the new and social media technologies.