Social Media in Library 2.0

In this week’s module on collaboration, we were given the YouTube Symphony Orchestra as an example of collaboration. There has been some discussion about whether or not a symphony is actually a collaboration, or whether it is a coordination or cooperation (while the terms are similar, they are not synonymous). I’m going to use the principles and definitions found on Meta Collab to examine this a bit further. I’ve put the criteria into a matrix: the squares highlighted in purple are the criteria that I feel are most exemplary of a symphony performance.

Collaboration matrix - Click for a larger view

1. Purpose

This one is a no-brainer. The individual members of the symphony couldn’t possibly perform the musical work the same way they can as a unit. Even if one musician were able to record all parts of the work and piece them together, the end result would not have benefited from the multitude of perspectives, skills, and expertise that other musicians bring.

2. Preconditions for success

The conditions for a coordination might be sufficient for a group of people to make it through a performance, but for a performance to be truly successful and rewarding, it needs to be dynamic and have a sense of urgency. Open communication (interpreting gestures from the conductor and other musicians, listening to the other players, reading the score and interpreting the composer’s markings, etc.) is an absolute necessity.

3. Enablers

Enablers are the criteria that aren’t necessary, but are nice to have. Here again, the criteria for a cooperation would suffice, but the criteria for collaboration will ensure a much better result.

4. Degree of interdependence and need for co-location of participants

As the YouTube Symphony has shown us, co-location in a physical sense is no longer a necessity for a successful symphony performance. However, the degree of interdependence is still substantial. I once sang in a choir in which we were told not to “poison the well.” If one member of the group doesn’t know his/her part, or has a negative attitude, it has an negative impact on the rest of the group. It’s a chain-as-strong-as-its-weakest-link kind of scenario.

5. Degree of individual latitude

This criterion is variable. It depends on the individual musician and his/her role within the group. A soloist has a great deal of latitude, as does the conductor; the concert master has a fair bit of latitude; someone who plays second violin would have considerably less individual latitude. It depends on the size of the section and of the overall group: the more people playing the same part, the less latitude those players have. It also depends on the genre of music, the era in which it was written, and the composer (some composers were much pickier about following score markings than others).

6. Desired outcome

One might not think that “savings in time and cost” applies to a symphony performance, but their unions are surprisingly strict about rehearsal time and compensation. In the case of a professional symphony, it’s very important to stick to rehearsal times and to work efficiently. The main goals of an extraordinary performance, and the “we did that!” feeling (and the audience’s “I can’t believe they did that!” reaction) are what every musical performance strives for.

To summarize, I agree with my classmates who say that a performance can be a simple coordination or cooperation. But I believe that a great performance, and what every musician strives for, is a true collaboration. What do you think?

I’ll leave you with another YouTube musical collaboration, Eric Whitacre‘s Virtual Choir singing Sleep. Here’s a link to his Ted Talks video, in which he explains the making of, and inspiration for, the video.

In Dean’s slideshow for Module II, he mentions that distributed cognition is one of the skills necessary for participation on the media landscape (at 12:28 in the slideshow).  This wasn’t a term I was familiar with, so I did a bit more research.  My knowledge of cognitive science is limited (i.e. non-existent), but after reading a little bit more about distributed cognition, I had a tiny “aha!” moment.  The academic articles can be hard to slog through, so I hope to spare you some pain with my version of Distributed Cognition for Dummies.

Edwin Hutchins developed the notion that “knowledge lies not only within the individual but in the individual’s social and physical environment” (EduTech Wiki).  Knowledge is distributed across individuals, tools, objects, and time; hence, the term “distributed cognition” or DCog.  Cognitive resources are compiled and shared among group members (and their tools), and the group can use these resources to achieve something that none of the individuals could alone.  The theory is particularly useful in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and in education.

Distributed Cognition diagram (found at http://cmap.ihmc.us/)

Hutchins uses the cockpit of an airplane as an example (Mansour 247).  The cockpit as a whole is a cognitive system: the interactions between crew members, between crew members and their tools, and the coordination of the tools all work together to transform information over the course of the flight.  The cockpit (i.e. the system) has collaborative knowledge that is much greater than the knowledge of each individual.

The parallels between distributed cognition and social media are clear.  When using social media, individuals contribute original content; they interact with one another, and with the social media tools available to them.  The collaborative knowledge is transformed by these interactions: “The resulted collaborative knowledge is rich of multiple ideas, meanings, and interpretations of everyone within the group, which helps to enhance the ability of making decisions and solve problems and is not reducible to any of the members of the group,” (Mansour 250).  Wikipedia is the quintessential example of this; Mansour discusses it at length.

Sources: