« That Postmodern Thing Again | Main | JFK »
March 30, 2005
divvying
I run the risk here, I suppose, of sounding obvious, but I'd like us to take note of the different sites that are being tested in some of these posts. As we think about the different academic networks that might be mapped, be mindful of the differences at play. Burt's chapter is dealing specifically with corporate networks, and while there are some overlaps, they're not perfect.
Under the umbrella of academia, we typically gather the networks that we call departments. Those departments form a network called the university. Most of us professors maintain part or all of the network we leave behind us when we leave graduate school. Finally, there are knowledge-based networks (topic areas, sub-disciplines) that aggregate to what we call a discipline. I'm sure that we can point out additional ones, or break these down further.
Simple to say, but hard to articulate, that there are differences among them.
For example, there is a Syracuse network--all of us who are here now, and all those who have spent time here but are no longer around, are part of it. We might develop metrics for determining our respective places in it, but our membership of this network is verifiable fact, yes?
Knowledge networks are a bit more difficult, though. How does one become a member? Publication? Attendance at a SIG meeting? Subscription to a listserv? And even if we can verify the nodes themselves, there's a content to the network itself (and Mike, this is where Burt's offhand ref to form and content starts to break down for me) that isn't necessarily true of the networks that Burt looks at. Any topic-based network (social focus?) occupies a space in our larger umbrella of comp/rhet--is visual rhetoric an actual specialization now, for instance? Or consider another area that's peaked in recent years--writing program administration was once simply a description of a certain kind of work that a cross-section of the discipline practiced. And now? There are entire collections devoted to articulating it as intellectual work, and it's become a topic of inquiry. I haven't checked this out, but presumably there are people working in this area who themselves have never actually administered a writing program.
Circling back to the readings then, while I want us thinking in terms of the language our readings deploy this week, I want us also to be conscious of the fact that a "structural hole" in the discipline means something very different from one on campus or from one in the Writing Program. Observations like this don't invalidate Burt, but they do require us to complicate some of his terms should we end up borrowing them.
Posted by cgbrooke at March 30, 2005 11:33 PM
Comments
Given the hierarchical organization of the university and its trend toward corporization, it doesn't seem like such a grand leap to generalize Burt to the academy---especially because so much of his discussion centers around social capital.
Posted by: di at March 31, 2005 09:18 AM
I don't know that I'd say it was a grand leap or anything, Dianna, and I don't want to make the case that the academy's more complicated or anything. That being said, though, our affiliations are typically more complicated than simply whether or not we're employees, and our networks as academics necessarily extend beyond our respective campuses. Think of how much more complicated Burt's examples would be if every single employee at a given company completed a 5-year apprenticeship with a competitor, and that this had an effect on status, performance, etc. My point is simply that Burt's examples work in a more strictly bounded environment...
Posted by: collin at March 31, 2005 10:21 AM
Yes, I get that now after more discussions in class. Thanks for clarifying...
Posted by: di at April 3, 2005 05:47 PM