Kim Studer's Study Guide Blog

While smart mobs and flash mobs use identical technology to communicate with many people they are hardly identical in action. Smart mobs have emerged in a "computation-pervaded" environment allowing social, political, and ecomomic groups to come to together in a revolutionary way. It is the rise in communication devices which have made it possible for existing organizations to arrange,"collective actions on a scale never before possible." With the use of the internet, cell phones, and text messaging smart mobs have been able to self-organize events, which have both supported democracy and synchronized terrorist attacks. Although it is unfortunate that particular politcal groups have misused the power of technology, most smart mobs are involved in promoting true democracy. It is as Danielle states,"Smart mobs are an intelligent group of people that more often than not seem to represent the word ‘smart’ more than the word ‘mob.’" According to Howard Rheingolds book Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, "Understanding human cooperation, from its evolutionary origins to its social dynamics, is key to understanding smart mobs." The website smart mobs gives a complete summary of the book including interviews and appearance schedules. Like I stated before although smart mobs and flash mobs use identical communication devices and intergrate human cooperation they don't function in the same fashion.

The new social phenomenon of flash mobs is most likely derived from the word 'flash' and the word 'crowd'. These flash mobs involve,"A large group of people who gather in a usually predetermined location, perform some brief action, and then quickly disperse." These unusual and silly happenings have become somewhat of a trend, with flash mobs sited in Sweden, Australia, and London. So far my favorite one I happened across was at flash mob info. It included Perry Farrell in a jester hat leading a mob street karoke after finishing up a concert. Good Times! Now that I've explained both smart mobs and flash mobs lets look at how they can empower both temporary and traditional organizations.

I've worked on multiple promotional jobs, which often require groups of people to spread out around the city and obviously promote a particular product. These are temporary jobs, lasting anywhere from one day to one month. The job requires you to stay in contact with your fellow promoters and to meet up at the end of the night at a convenient location. More often then not each group of promoters is given a list of places they must go to in order to fullfill the job requirements. However, if one group is finished before another they must continue to participate,helping the other groups finish up before the night ends. Smart mobs and flash mob technology is an excellent way for these promotional groups to stay on top of the job, they could keep in constant communication and fullfill there requirements in the most efficent manner. Stephanie mentions how using these technologies for promotional events would be beneficial. Both publicity and promotional events have similiar things in common. They are usually a temporary job and they often require a large group of people who need to stay in constant contact for everything to run smoothly. Communication is key in any organization.

In a traditional organization communication is vital because it is continuous. In order to run an organization properly it is vital that all of the departments stay connected with one another. Smart mob technology could be utlized in each department allowing for an even flow of communication. It could be used to alert employees of last minute meetings, special events, deadlines, unexpectant guest, important employees who are out of the office for the day or the week. There are a million and one things that smart mobs are useful for and the best part about it is you don't have to be in the office to find out about it.

I read quite a few of the articles that you supplied for us as resources. They were especially informative and finally gave me a clear idea about the effective nature of blogs in todays technology. This would of been a great introduction into the world of online blogs an its use in organizational communication.

Webblogs could revolutionize the way organizations are run by breaking down walls of communication between the various levels of employees within an organization. It allows for a flow of communication to be established throughout the whole of the organization by giving a voice to those who don't have a voice. It seeks to improve knowledge manegement by providing a shared space where information and knowledge can be captured and displayed as one. You can learn more about knowledge management by going to the knowledge management research center. It boosts the level of team work by giving employees a sense of ownership in specified projects. "They have a way to contribute not just to the project, but to the process, as well. Weblogs are overcoming the technological disadvantages of another knowledge management source, email and changing the face of one organization at a time.

I am a firm believer in giving a voice to those who don't have a voice. Upper-level employees hardly ever seek out information knowledge from employees who are not either on their same level or above. I believe this is a very unbalanced way of running a corporation, not to mention it is unhumane. Employees work much harder if they feel that are taking part in something greater than themselves. A blog is a way of offering valuable information to all level of employees; The bigger picture is established. Whether it is a K-Log, a project blog, workgroup blog, individual blog, or an extranet blog it allows for better documentation, and an archive of the contributions made by employees. What are the benefits of this archive? First of all, it is an excellent reference tool. Say a situation arises that is similiar to one that occured in the past; An archive will allow you to retrieve the information, refer to it and hopefully solve your problem without having to obtain additional support. It is also a great training tool. If a new employer is hired he can be directed to the individual blog, which gives him/her valuable information into the organization and the project at hand. The new employee automatically knows that he/she is dealing with a "jelled" team. Why do they understand this? They are viewing a flow of ideas. Now how is this new technology is overcoming the most frequently used knowledge management tool today?

Danielle makes a descriptively points out the most aggravating part of checking your email, junkmail. She makes several other valid points about the shortcomings of depending strictly on email as a knowledge management source. Snail mail versus email, a topic which is hardly worth mentioning these days with the constant influx of emails written and received everday. However, the BBC does mention it and along with it points out drawbacks of email. We can't be to hard on email though, it was and still is a revolutionary device for the flow of communication. It just needed a helping hand, something to take the load off. Weblogs do exactly that by providing people with new resources that email was not built to handle.

So, what are some of the useful tools that webblogs offer to make your blogging experience more enjoyable? One useful tool is a newsaggregator. Michelle explains aggregators on her site. She also makes an interesting reference to wiki's and what the word stands for, but back to blog tools. Here is a variety of tools weblogs have to offer: personal filing cabinent, knowledge journals,a way to organize personal information,marketing assest,and a great tool for attracting new customers. For additional information on webtools click on this to see what they have to offer you.

I would like to end with a quote from
Nicole's blog, "Webblogs are here to stay."

The chief problem with the Command and Control Model is there is no back up if a crisis occurs. America has forever been a country that requires immediate results. They take action with only two things on their mind, national wealth and power. However nothing is a sure thing, especially when the people in control are so terrified of losing control that they continue to react and yet again act without thinking. Consider President Bush, do you think he spent time thinking about what might happen when he declared war on Iraq? Is their not weapons of self distruction in Iran, and hundreds of thousands of people with an undescriable hatred of America and Americans. Is not September 11, a "Blowback" of the cold war? Is it not true that America often sends others to do their dirty work? So why is it that we haven't learned our lesson? Why is it that we don't spend time to analyze the situation, discuss our options, and devise back up plans? All we have to do is consider what Command and Control stands for.

To command is to have authority over. To control is to exercise authority. A key component missing from this model is communication. Consider the possibilties if those unheard voice were given a voice. Would this not open doors to a more productive, well thought out organization of control? As Barry Lynn points out in the fifth paragraph of his essay, "Companies like Dell's success depends at least as much on the efficiency of its processes as on the quality of its product." America however, is only concerned with organizing under one control which, doesn't include hearing opinions of others who might possibly disagree with their decision. Consider the difference of a decentralized market base, non-bureaucratic, and non-regulatory approach to economic growth.

As Lyneve states,"Economic globalization combines human innovation and the integration of economics around the world" A decentralized market base would allow for the continuation of globalization, while preparing American companies with a alternative if a crisis should occur. Not only that, it would open high value jobs for Americans. Let us consider the difference between buying a product overseas versus buying one that was made in America. It is true that the cost of the product, for example a bike, will be cheaper not only for the company but most likely for the consumer as well. However, as Edward Chenard points out in his essay on globalization,"Look at the cost of those two bikes 5 years from now. Chances are you will still own the American made bike and spend a yearly tune up fee for up keep. The Chinese made Wal Mart bike is long gone!

As I bring this to a close I would like to leave you with an example referencing communication that Michelle gave in her blog. "In a network, relying on one other node could cause you to essentially be cut off from all other communication if that node became a single point of failure. We can only hope that American companies will devise a alternative plan before it is to late.

This was finished awhile ago, I don't know why it didn't post. I read it at one point on my blog and today when I came back to write my new post it was saved as a draft.

A Social Network analysis is an illustration of the interaction within the organization. The illustration is represented by a map, which uses simple symbols to represent the, "relationship and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers, or other information/knowledge processing entities." The symbols on the map are represented by nodes and lines. Nodes appear as small black circles with lines connecting them to other nodes. The lines represents the flow between the nodes. As we can see by the "Kite Network" nodes represent both senders and receivers. We can also see that the location of a node, "helps determine the importance, or prominece, of a node in the network. The interaction between nodes are represented by the link or line between to people or groups. The analysis succesfully measures the difference between degrees, betweenness, and closeness. Danielle Armstrong has smooth way of describing the social network. I especially liked her last comment in her opening paragraph describing managements uses of SNA's.

A way of understanding degrees is to think about the Kevin Bacon game, which measures the degrees of seperation between himself and another. You could be three hunded and sixty-five degrees of seperation or you could be two degrees to seperation. Since all of the degrees lead to Kevin Bacon we will assume the lower degree of sepertion the better. This example is another way of thinking about a traditional organization, which is based on a hierarchical structure. After reading some of the other post I discovered that I was not the only one who related degrees to Kevin Bacon. Stephanie Carino links to Kevin Bacons website to illustrate the point as well.However, with in a modern organization, like the "Kite Network", the lines of communication are opened up through horizontal lines."Horizontal lines of communication allow for more flexibility in developing new lines between nodes at all levels." Since the organization uses horizontal lines the degrees are measured by the number of direct connections. It is not necessarily important to be connected to as many nodes as possible, more importantly is where the connection leads to. For example, a node may be connected to twenty different nodes but, at the same time only be connected within an immediate cluster. As you can see a lower degree of communication is not necessarily a bad thing if you are connected with the right people. Who you are connected to often has to due with your location within the network. Your location can be looked at distinctly first, by betweeness and secondly, by closeness.

The influence you have within a comany is a determinate of betweeness. If you are between two very important people most likely you "play a power role in the network." Although this is a great role to play within a company it is one that needs to be taken very seriously. Having a high level of control over the flow of communication in a network means you will be singled out as a point of failure if information is cut off to your nodes. Betweenees is the second way centrality is measured within a network the third way is closeness. The pattern of your connections within a network determines the speed at which you will access information. Therfore, being closer to others puts you in a better position to monitor the flow of information.

Though not one of the most popular measures of centrality, boundary spanners help determine which groups are interacting with other groups. Naturally, groups that communicate with each other have access to more information. By combing the other groups information with their own they," are in a position to combine different ideas and knowledge." There is an interesting article on boundary spanners at find articlesThe last group which is discussed in the analysis is peripheral players.

Though a player may be on the peripherial it doesn't mean they are not important. The player is most likely to be tied to other networks. Therfore,the information they have access to outside the company is now available within the company.

Degrees, betweeness, and closeness are three of the most popular roles in measuring the effectiveness of a network. A mapped out analysis is a great illustrater to decipher the distinct role each part plays, which also includes boundary spanners, and peripheral players. If you want some information on mapping Rolands Technology trends offers tools, available research, software and visual tools. Lastly, the centrality of a network must be a well thought out process. A very centralized network has a greater chance of losing all of its information if something goes wrong. A less centralized network has more chance of surviving attacks or failures because, "it does not have a single point of failure."

Though this concept is hardly new, the term network has not been used in my teachings of any other communication course. I can only wonder as to why we have been readily exposed to one idea, that meanings are not found in words rather, they are found in people, and not to the other. Regardless, this information opens a door into communication which is both insightful and thought provoking however, it is also somehow dismal in its reality. We know this is not new information, especially when we consider the way in which we are brought up: learning right from wrong, being sent to school,getting a job, and learning the laws of the land, its concept appears abstract at first because it appears to be robbing human beings of something which we hold dear, finding meaning.

First we wil discuss the network. The network is not only a determinant of society, it is mutually-dependent on societies structure. They say growing up ain't easy, maybe it has something to do with our ever expanding network. Our parents parents raised them to live accordingly to the meaning they found in the network and inevidably, my parents did the same. A generation gap, is a word taken from the network, which demonstrates the power the network has, we live our lives by it.
Aubrey states that,"The people within a network are interdependent on the system from which they function or the properties of the shared dialogue." This shared dialogue has many layers to it due to the constant fluctuation of the English language. Jakobsen defines these layers as subcodes or subsources. The subcodes and subsources are what allow us to communicate with people who have a different understanding of the network, or what I see as a different interpretation of the network. They are survival mechanisms for communication. The most basic way we attach symbols and there corresponding meanings is through Saussure theory of the sign. "He defines the signifier as the "sound-image" to be distinguished by the "signified", which is a concept." There is an unbreakable bond between the "signifier" and the "signified." Now, that we have and understanding of what the network entails, we will discuss the source.

As we've discovered the source is not to be found in any individual brain.David gives a simple and precise definition of the source. "The "source" is the ensemble of all possible messages, plus the probabilities that predict their occurrences in actual communication; the source is an abstract model." Now that we have a clear understanding of how the network works and its connection to the source; we can clearly see how meaning is not in people or the source rather, it is in the network. Lastly, we must discuss what role the brain plays in all of this.

There would be no source, nor network without the brain. However, the brain generates no meaning or a collection of possible messages rather, "it contains statistical rules to generate a limited ensemble of possible messages" The brain contains something like a language source. It has the ability to determine the likelihood of combinations. Also, because of its ability to understand sensicle messages it can determine things that the source cannot, it can differentiate what makes sense and what does not due to its ability to understand the rules of the gramatical rules of the English language. I have now completed the combined theories which make up Shannon and Weaver model 11. I would like to leave it off with some questions of my own, which I hope someone will take the time to contemplate and respond to.

An interesting layer, which may or may not have a place within this model but, one that I find extremely important and one that I hold dearly, is our senses. All I have to say is that when your body receives a sensory message there is meaning in the senses, as a whole. Your brain will eventually go through the source and find meaning within the source to explain the sensory message however, your body is sending you a meaningful message in its form(as one of the five-six senses). You can check out more about senses at this website.

To end, I leave you with the question where did it all begin? If there is no such thing as original thought than how is it that a network has been created? How do you break from the bonds of derivative consciousness. The vast majority of the contents of our mind is a smorgasbord of random thoughts heard from others throughout our lifetime."We can define original thought as a thought that is lacking connectedness to other thoughts." Check out this website for more information on original thought and randomness.

I have to admit after reading part one of the Shannon and Weaver Model I was a little annoyed. I thought it was missing more than its fare share of information to represent a communication model. I felt as if several important factors were initially left out, which now appear to be accounted for. After reading part two I was completely intrigued by the concept as a whole. The combination of the three(Shannon and Weaver Mondel, Jakobsen, and Saussuere)models clearly defines and explains how the, "the concept of "English" or any natural language as a single source is untenable."

In order to comply with the actual meaning of communication the model must account for Roman Jakobsen's concept of code and subcode as well as, the source containing both messages and meaning.(all possible messages and all possible meanings) For example, a distinction made between the way text appears and the way English is spoken. Also, the distinction between what type of text is being read.
These so called "pockets," as they are refered to, patch up large holes in the the Shannon and Weaver Model.It is impossible to have a statistical model based off of the English language with out taking into account dialectics and sub-dialectics or as they are referred to in the chapter, statistical peculiarities.Michael points out that if codes have different subcodes, which depends on the info source, communication cannot occur correctly. And,as Jacobsen points out,"language is constantly shifting." Saussuere adds another layer to the model by introducing the signifier and the signified.

Saussuere asks some very important questions before introducing the difference between the sign and the signifier. How are particular messages attached to particular meanings? What is a meaning unanswered? In short, as Saussuere states, " the word meaning has many meanings." Using this information we can now start to connect Shannon and Weavers symbols with their corresponding meanings. Although, I was already familiar with the signified and the signifier it is incredible to see it broken down and yet realize that there is an unbreakable bond between the signified and the signifier. It is clear that what characterizes the sign is a matter of convention, an assembly, presented in chains. When I read, "That no sign exists in isolation," I immediately thought of Imbars original post, which refers to the isolation of letters within the alphabet. A sign can no more exist in isolation then it can be identified witout its distinction of other signifiers and signifieds.There is an essay worth reading on Semiotics titled Semiotics - Saussure. It includes some great examples of a signifier and the signified. It is important to mention though that once you get to the site you must use the index section; press on {sa}, scroll down and you will see and introduction to semiotics. Something else that struck me when I googled signified and signifier was a pschoanalytic analysis of the movie Boxing Helena which interprets the story as a signifier.

In joining the three concepts together I can see how the source is not stored in the brain rather, it is the statistical rules of the English language which it contains. It is quite amazing!

The Shannon and Weaver Model is an interesting model, however I feel as if it is misplaced or perhaps misused. Human to human communication takes place under the assumption that meanings are to be found somewhere within the sign used in the message so that the receiver can take them out again. However, the Shannon and Weaver model does not, "entangle itself in the messy buisness of meaning."

Defining the satistical characteristics of a source is mathematical and can be used only under clearly defined conditions, like in that of telecommnication. The main purpose of this model, as far as I can see, is to seperate noise from the information carrying signals in telecommunication or perhaps less immediate forms of communication.Imbar has several insightful thoughts about the Shannon and Weaver model, also her remarks on noise were followed by two great examples.

The idea that redundancy is determined by the amount of freedom within a code is thought provoking. We can see it through writing, half of the letters we choose and the other half are controlled by the statistical stucture of the language however, it is only concerned with the transmission of the message.I tried to visulized this model: think about floating letters being transferred through a signal and then being put back together in the mind of the receiver.The visual form is like something out of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. However, I must reiterate that the redundancy of the letters has very little to do with the transmitted message being received in a corresponding way. The idea would be much more compelling and thought provoking if it dealt with the context of the message, the intentions of the message, the medium of the message, and the personal experiences that go along with sending the message.

It is perhaps to analytical a model for my taste. Our thoughts turned into symbols is how we communicate, the meaning behind the symbols is the basis of human to human communication. However, since the model does not deal with meanings it cannot be criticized for that. I enjoyed reading Michael's section on repetition. Through the following examples he demonstrates how repetition is an important part of the way we communicate. He states,"In spoken word, the more repetition there is the more a person walks away with a certain idea." We can see this through his example on advertising. "In advertising, redundancy in ads, commercial, press releases, all show a certain idea and provide a message to society."

Repetition can even be used as a technique. As an actor I have studied different methods to help me perform to the best of my ability. The first method I studied was Meisner. A example of this technique in action is: two actors sitting face to face, one actor starts out by saying something, which the other actor must repeat, this can continue on for mere seconds to ten minute long intervals. The actor must constantly look and listen to his fellow actor who could change what he is saying at a minute. The actor must be able to repeat exactly what the actor says in order for the repetition to continue. A more thourough example of how this model works can be seen at meisner technique.I am not totally against this model; I certainly can see how it is used in everyday life. It has a powerful effect on the way ideas can almost be subconsiouly imbeaded in ones mind.

To conclude, I will leave you off with a movie, which I believe exemplifies this point in another fascinating way. In the movie somethings gotta to give. Jack Nicholsons character constantly repeats to himself that he is not the marrying type, he dates younger women, a constant bachelor. He is what he repeats to himself. However, after going through a life changing experiece and meeting a women who he/she both believe are each other soul mates this all changes. I'm refering you to amazon because I thought it was such a funny movie that it is worth buying. In this example we can see that both repetition and human experiece plays a role in communication. However, it is ultimately the experience which stops the repetion.