I was minding my own business the other day, re-reading an article about "Program Guidelines for Long-Distance Education Initiatives: Overcoming Faculty Resistance" in Aretê the Journal of the College of Social Work at the University of South Carolina (vol. 23, Winter 1999, No. 1 pp 11-21) when serendipity struck! From reading about one thing, my brain suddenly took me on a journey across space and time to something completely different and yet, probably related.
Faculty members in social work schools who are resistant to the introduction and use of distance education are not alone. Social workers in general (at least in my experience) seem to be quite resistant to the use of the new 'enabling' technologies that have emerged as we have left the industrial and post industrial eras behind and moved adventurously into the information and knowledge ages.
Social workers, as a group, are usually "early adopters" when it comes to things that can positively affect their interactions with each other and with their client groups. The concept of sharing rather than hoarding information, one of the fundamental underpinnings of knowledge management, is familiar and in constant use by most social workers. The social work 'ellipse' that 'defines' (at least in my experience) the way in which social workers adjust their physical space when having a group discussion emphasises the need to communicate freely without barriers. The emphasis which is placed on teamwork, sharing, openness, exploration of options and potential solutions to problems in social work are all elements of the new (or not so new) frameworks being explored and/or used in management today as part of the emerging knowledge management processes.
Yet when we look at the extent to which social workers are and have been adopting the uses of technology which deal with communities of interest, virtual communities, lobbying on line, social policy discussions on line, team rooms, message boards etc. we find a less than overwhelming enthusiasm and pick up rate. Why is this so?
One thought which has emerged (at least in my consciousness) is that it could have something to do with the internalised "rules" which people learn and adopt about interpersonal communications in general.
For example, we all know that communication is enhanced when it is face to face. We all know that the best part of communication lies in non verbal communication. We all know that the nature of the communication and the associated behaviours while one is communicating are governed by the context in which the communication is taking place. Thus you can say things at home that might be inappropriate in the work place, you can say things at the pub that would be most inappropriate when presenting a paper to a conference audience of your professional colleagues and so on.
There are also "rules" that inhibit communications. People may not feel comfortable about expressing an opinion in public that they would have no problem expressing in private. The 'rules' for a 'private' define the levels of trust and acceptance which are expected among a group of participants. The rules for 'public' are quite different.
There are 'rules' which govern the levels of trust and acceptance in business as well. Note how the use of the words "Brainstorming Session" can create a degree of freedom of expression which would otherwise be notably absent for the same group of workers in their communications outside the 'safety fence' created by those words.
What if, the 'rules' which govern communications in the medium of the Internet and Intranet, ie electronic, written and public, run counter to the 'rules' which we have learnt, adopted and are using? Are these old rules an impediment to using the new forms of communication which are becoming more and more de rigeur in the new knowledge community?
Do we have rules which govern these new forms of communication? Of course we do. We have the so called 'netiquette' which governs communications using e-mails. We have words which define anger in communications - FLAMING people. We have rules that determine that the use of symbols to represent ideas is a useful shorthand in this new medium so we have :-) or ;-) or J standing in for
Most people who are part of the baby boomer generation may not have come across these rules and may not be able to use them either in context or effectively. Many of the younger generation that has been growing up with the Internet does know how to use them, but maybe told that when they are at work or communicating with others (usually people senior to themselves and in a more powerful situation than they find themselves in) that this form of communication behaviour is unacceptable. They may be discouraged from using this form of communication in the work place and/or in communication with their professional colleagues lest they be though of as being less competent or professional and hence create difficulties for themselves in their career aspirations. Their behaviour in private may well be something else again, as they may well be participants in chat lines, instant communications with Internet 'buddies' or participants in non profession related forums.
My attempts at introducing members of the Australian Association of Social Work and social workers more broadly to communicate in public using the medium of a 'message board' or discussion data base attached to the ACT Branch Web Page of the Association proved less successful than might be expected given the subject matter. Thus the expected flurry of communications about social issues, governance of the association, continuous professional education, which could be enabled by this medium was being actively used only by a few. There may well be 'lurkers' - people who sit on the sidelines reading the contributions of others, but these people are invisible to the group which is conducting the communications in public.
What is even more interesting are the number of people who communicated about the content on the message board or the web page in personal emails with me directly and who indicate that they would prefer their communications to remain private in a one to one format. I have no difficulties with respecting their wishes, but it is their resistance to communicating in the open which I find fascinating.
Let me explore with you why this is so.
In the past, one of the forms of powerlessness experienced by the masses in society had to do with the absolute control of the media by those who were among the wealthy and powerful elite of society. While this power is now in fact more concentrated into the hands of even fewer people than has ever been the case in history, the countervailing force lies in the Internet.
Anyone can have a web site operational in a matter of minutes and at absolutely minimal cost if you know how. Thus anyone anywhere in the world can express his or her opinion about virtually anything and have it 'published' world wide. The recent spate of case law about the publication of MP3 music files without the payment of royalties to the artists, the furore over fascist right wing web sites, not to mention the variety of pornographic sites which abound on the Internet are all demonstrable proof, if any is needed, that the Internet is probably the most uncensored mode of communication which is possible in the world today.
Alvin Toffler in his "Third Wave" predicted that the use of the Internet would revolutionise the way in which politics was conducted around the world.
People would be able to write directly to their leaders, letter campaigns would be revolutionised in that the cost of mass communications would drop to almost zero. Today it is possible to get a petition signed by people around the world in their hundreds and thousands in a matter of days. It is possible to get people to take a single letter template, and turn that template into a citizen based letter campaign to politicians and the media. It is circulated over the Internet from ONE computer into the mail boxes of thousands of people by a simple process. One person send it to his friends with instructions on what to do with it. They are asked to send it to their friends and so on until the daisy chain created by this process leads to a geometric progression of input from many more people than the individual who started the campaign could possible ever get to know in his or her lifetime.
We can see the stirrings of this revolution already in the way that the Internet has enabled people to get behind the official propaganda machines in various trouble spots around the world, the way in which people who are trying to save an endangered species are communicating with potential political allies in countries around the world in the way that organisations like Amnesty International can bring the plight of prisoners of conscience to the attention of millions in minutes and with minimal cost.
Social workers could embrace this technology and by understanding its power and its ability to influence outcomes be in a position to make a greater contribution to reversing the impact of powerlessness than they have ever been able to do before. They could, for the first time quickly and effectively and at little cost in terms of time and money, muster the information that they have gained from working with client groups across an entire country, about the impact of social policies or bureaucratic guidelines on these client groups. The information could be prepared, collected, correlated and disseminated to politicians, the media, lobby groups, community agencies in an extremely short time frame with devastating impact.
Are we so locked into the ways of communication that we have enjoyed and used in the past that we are unable to embrace this new technological breakthrough? Are we suffering from a kind of 'stuckness', as envisaged in Milan Family Therapy? Do we value the old ways of doing things to such an extent that we would reject a different approach even though it could enable our clients to achieve the levels of empowerment that we have been trying to assist them towards for decades?
I can't answer this question. Only you can, by what you decide to do in the future.
As for me, I will continue to use the technology, I will make every effort I can to make it available to as many professional colleagues as I can and make myself available to help those that decide to use these opportunities through information, advice, coaching, indeed whatever it takes to help them take advantage of this new medium and include it among their professional practice skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment