Replying to LO24848 --
I agree with Lana and think Bill may be onto something. I remember a
thread from sometime last year on the subject of lurking and I think we
are going over some of the same stuff but perhaps from a different route.
I suspect that people contribute infrequently or not at all for lots of
different reasons - I can only speak for myself. Focus groups or, at
least, categorising the posts in some way may help me to get more from the
list. I've tried to analyse my reasons for not-contributing below.
1. Time is a real issue for me. The LO list is, IMHO, the best source of
new ideas, inspiration, practical advice etc. that I have found, but I am
either too busy or too undisciplined to read the contributions regularly
and even then selectively. It does occur to me in writing this that, as a
non-contributor, I am in no place to judge the quality, length, language
or otherwise of those who have taken the time to contribute - I selfishly
take and give nothing in return. "Browsing" through some of the posts is
not an option. I faithfully printed out and studied At's thermodynamic
metaphor posts and got a real buzz from understanding but it took lots of
time and effort. I sometimes find myself selecting posts by contributor
rather than by subject and I know I'm missing all sorts of valuable stuff.
To make a contribution takes even longer. It takes time for me to
structure my thoughts and make them explicit.
2. Limitations of the medium. There is something about this medium that
makes it awkward for me to communicate easily. Bill's analogy with face to
face facilitation really strikes a chord here. All the non-verbal cues I
rely on are gone. I can't see the twinkle in someone's eye that gives a
clue to what lies between the lines of what they've said. I can't catch
the change in tone that gives a clue to the feelings that lie beyond the
explicit message. Lots of people on this list have the skill to compensate
for this by using language in a clever way to convey feelings. I find the
written word quite clumsy and, again, hard work to convey what I really
mean/feel.
3. Dialogue. I learn by asking stupid questions. If someone on the list
was explaining a complex theory to me face to face, I would have
interrupted and asked questions of clarification, summarised, played back
what they'd said to ensure I'd understood and asked for practical
examples. I guess that can still happen here but the latency is much
higher and somehow it seams awkward.
4. Inspiration. Lots of the posts on this list inspire me. Many have
inspired me to contribute. I have been in the situation where I've read
something that got me really fired up and then two posts later I've read a
really articulate post that makes explicit exactly what I was thinking and
I end up thinking "I was going to say that!".
To summarise I guess that everyone is motivated to post by different
subjects, styles, circumstances and preferences. I am not sure whether
Bill's focus groups will work as an analogue for the face to face versions
in the way that smaller groups might encourage contributions from more
people. Categorisation in some way might help however and the word balance
sums it up for me. before we get too carried away we should consider doing
nothing. There is a case for saying if its not broken - don't fix it.
There are limitations of the medium that we may have to live with. I feel
a change in the atmosphere on the list since Rick's intervention - perhaps
that is enough.
BTW Lana - Sagittarius but only by 2 days!
Best regards,
graham
--"Graham Fletcher" <graham.fletcher@ntlworld.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.