SOCIETY 2.0

What is “Society 2.0”?

“Society 2.0” is an image of what current tools, activities and social processes could provide social-enhancement. This can be depicted by conceptualizing two components: 1) the rightful and appropriate usage of our biological and artificial information technologies for the serious purposes of increasing the knowledge base of all, and 2) the individual and collective reorientation of acting upon the most valuable of information available to us. A redirection of consumerism, research, journalism, activism, and economic decisions, ECT, could result as people become more informed about ‘positive human-activities.’

Developing appropriate incentives for focusing our collaborative knowledge in a way of behaving and existing alternatively is not in this picture of Society 2.0. ‘Society 2.0’ is in part, an image of emerging components which have already had an impact of guiding the use of web-based information applications. Specific facets of the applications have successfully focused on integrative methods of collaboration and information dissemination. Individual users communicate to the entire collective over networks in a way where by all the users can seek out and discover innovative ideas of social change. If Human-Kind would use the “information technologies” we have to their fullest societal potential, the exchanging of innovative ideas can more easily occur. The resulting social, cognitive advancement could at least potentially offer a collective reorientation of being an ‘informed’ citizen, researcher, producer, consumer ECT. This would mean that individual 'informed-actions' would create societal outcomes which represent a wider knowledge base.

This kind of epistemic-behavior of an individual would be more apparent at an interpersonal level. This individual reorientation should create the incentive for both communities, and society-at-large to use such informational tools to manage, share, and discover innovative knowledge-formations and others' 'informed' perspectives on the decisions we make in our daily lives. If individuals are attentive to finding that which will allow them to make more ‘informed’ decisions, than the collective intelligence and the communities of practice of our species can generate alternatives to the societal outcomes we see today. Individual entities often act upon, collaborate, and disseminate information for the benefit and survival of the collective.

Could There Be a Way For This to Occur?

Yes, one potential way would be through the societal action of informing one another by more effective modes of collaborative research, so that practices of actively seeking out important information would be a more sought-after activity. Through various methods of incorporating accessible and searchable interdisciplinary research through online media, ‘Society 2.0’ would use information technology to research, disseminate, collaborate, and coordinate what individuals should do to advance society. Although not considering 'natural' knowledge systems in the statement; in 1964 Oliver W. Holmes wrote “Knowledge exists in two forms: (1) "active knowledge," meaning that to be found in the brains of living human individuals and therefore available to them at any given moment as bases for actions, and (2) "passive (or potential) knowledge," which exists in the great reservoir of documents in which have been recorded the experiences, observations, thoughts, and discoveries of other men, chiefly those of the past”(Holmes 1).

Puting collective, “active and passive knowledge” to action could be attained by using the knowledge management applications of “Web 2.0 and Social Media.” These innovative tools should be used for more than just entertainment and terminology-defining purposes. Web 2.0, Social Media, and the collaborative orientations which result from their use, should enable and encourage serious discourse and research praxis over the Internet. The increase of valuable information flow would allow us to fully characterize our physical selves as the informed beings we are. The outcome would be producing social results and externalities in the physical world that demonstrate the (at least better) understanding of our human-knowledge-base. Imagining potential human-betterment in the ways I have mentioned is the crux of “Society 2.0.”

Components of ‘Society 2.0’

Many of the aspects of ‘Society 2.0’ are related to terminology which is emerging in use, yet familiar to scholars. Outlining the components which make up the image will enable the reader to conceptualize ‘information flows’ in the context of ‘Society 2.0.’ Ken Fischer has given the best definition of ‘social technology’ from what I have researched, and it was from his own personal blog, without sources. Social Technology describes technology which makes use of contribution and the activities of the users of the tools and applications to enhance the technologies’ “relevance, usability, content, navigation or function” (Fischer 2009.) Social technology has been used in many different ways and through many different contexts, but this understanding of its meaning will be the most useful for this text. Social Software describes two things: 1) a variety of software systems that allow users to collaborate and share information, and 2) the processes of societies which serve a specific organizational role. Although applicable to academia, social software is not typically used in this context. Terry Anderson has written on the concept of 'educational social software,' defined as "[...] networked tools that support and encourage individuals to learn together while retaining individual control over their time, space, presence, activity, identity and relationship" (Anderson 2005a, p. 4.) As Anderson understands it, social software is a very difficult concept to define because it consists of a wide range of different information technologies and the ‘social’ piece of the ‘software’ often comes to light from a combined use of different tools and applications.

Among other facets, ‘Society 2.0’ combines the concepts of collective intelligence and communities of practice. Tom Atlee has written a great deal about collective intelligence and would agree that it is basically the capacity of human communities to evolve towards higher organizations, complexities of information and harmonious activities using methods of innovation. Methods to create collective innovation would be joint avenues of “differentiation and integration, competition and collaboration,” depending on the context (Atlee, 2007, 1.) In terms of ‘Society 2.0,’ it is a shared, group intelligence that exists through these methods in the intellectual ‘social media’ of many individuals having discourse about social change.

Similarly, 'communities of practice' is a term which was coined by Barbara Rogoff in 1985, and is directly related to our concept of ‘Society 2.0.’ According to Etienne Wenger, “communities of practice are formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor…Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” (Wenger circa 2007, 1) Weinger describes three characteristics of ‘communities of practice;’ the domain, the community, and the practice. In terms of ‘Society 2.0,’ our domain is the collective identity of an ‘informed society’ which acts upon such shared interests. The community is that of individuals participating in “joint activities” and collaborative discussions in order to better inform the collective, disseminating knowledge. The practice of ‘Society 2.0’ would be developing a “shared repertoire” of sustained interactions, becoming a collective of “practitioners” whom actively carry out decisions as consumers, activists, and researchers which echo the information these individuals have incorporated into their personal knowledge base (Wenger 2002.) The pseudo-combination of these two concepts in ‘Society 2.0’ gives the reader insight into just how this metaphysical collective intelligence is put into practice to bring about societal change.

Information Systems are both Biological and Artificial

Organisms, networks, societies and communities exchange information using interactive modes of communication. These entities utilize methods of information flow through biological and 'artificial' information systems. Information technologies facilitate this process, regardless the medium of communication. This enables these individual and collective entities to fluidly-direct their actions based on the information that is available to the network. This is more apparent in the context of specific species direct the actions of ‘networks’ based on the information these organisms can perceive. Examples of systems in nature using information in simple social networks to create long-term survival solutions are seen ubiquitously. Unfortunately, examples of other organisms and networks using misinformation or using information inappropriately are also apparent. In either instance, Information is used by all species in one way or another to guide how the actions of individual organisms should orient to 'socially-create' some specific reality. As I have found, “information technologies” can be seen in the activities of all organisms. Humans have developed “biological information technologies” as well as in this same context.
Our senses are the physiological methods of perceiving and exchanging information, our “biological information systems”. Throughout human history, examples of oral traditions and mass-gatherings show that a great deal of information and knowledge can be accumulated using our physiological information systems. Because of this biological information that is exchanged between individuals, our bodies have developed complex mechanisms and processes of reading and inferring what messages other humans are trying to convey. Human physiological media then can only convey so much information to individuals and the collective knowledge base. In order to better organize the complexities of the information in reality, humans developed methods of storing and gathering information that is more effective than only using our senses.

We have created artifice to store and gather data, being the physical technologies which amplify our communicative and informational potential. The development of artifice-based, global-‘information systems’ is something that other organisms have not accomplished on earth. This fact may seem like an obvious statement, but there is a great deal of simplicity and interoperability of 'our' unique example of biological information systems being appropriately utilized to innovate "'user-created' information systems of artifice." This begs the question of just how technologically advanced methods of exchanging information could be oriented differently? Could informing society in a way which appropriately uses information technologies allow individuals to predicatively organize entire networks; similarly to how biological organisms typically do this for the survival of that 'network' or even species? If humans currently use mainstream media and social-media information technologies in ways which only minimally inform-- only marginally inspiring social collaboration or participation in how society is guided-- then how can society use the technology currently available to facilitate more informed social actions?

preliminary topic discussions

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
-What is ‘Society 2.0’?
- Components of ‘Society 2.0’
- Information Systems are Biological and Artificial
-Pedagogy, Information Systems, and Societal Change

Part I: Biological Models for how Information Works
1.1: 'Biological Information Systems'
1.2: Biological Networks Exchange Information for the Survival of the Species
1.3: 'Biological Social-Software' as a deep history of cooperation and symbiosis
1.4: 'Cellular Information-flows': 'Vibrio Fischeri Communication' for Synchronous Action
1.5: 'Biological Social-Technology' of Networked Information Systems: Synchronous Collective- Movements of Fish
1.6: Chimpanzee Interpersonal Communication and Social Organization
1.7: The Homo-Sapien as an 'entity' using advanced physiological information technologies

Part II: The bionics of information flow and societal innovation
2.1: Current IT Media Lack 'Important Research Content'
2.2: Bionic methods of using IT for 'social-innovation'
2.3: All Organisms Use Bionic Methods within their Unique Contexts
2.4: Basic Similarities among the information flows of all organisms
2.5: Basic Differences between the information flows of all organisms
2.6 'Biologically Inspired Computing' as social collaboration and Part

Part III: The Evolution of Physiological and Artificial Human Information Technologies
3.1: Using Basic Human Physiological Information Technologies
3.2: Human Information Technologies Evolve
3.3: Human Societies Use Information to Innovate
3.4: Information-Knowledge-Innovation-Social Action
3.5: Examples of Mass-Human Collaboration Movements

Part IV: The Creation of the Digital Identity
4.1: The Creation of the Digital Self
4.2: Personhood Issues of Digital Identities
4.3: Digital Identities are Context and Purpose Specific
4.4: ‘Identity 2.0’ as a More Mature Understanding of Digital Identity

Part V: Fully Utilizing Social Media and Collective Consciousness to Better Inform Society
5.1: Collaborative Applications Facilitate ‘Social Media’
5.2: Web 2.0 as the ‘Social Software’ Context of Appropriately Informing Society
5.3: The Online Community and using Social-Presence To Create ‘Social-Capital’
5.4: Collective Consciousness is Providing Identity Empowerment
5.5: A Brief Case Study: Example of the Current “Green” Physical Technologies Movement




Part VI: Interpretation & Findings
6.1: Organisms Have Used Information Technologies Appropriately
6.2: Collaboration and Open Information As a Key to Survival
6.3: Human Usage of Bio-Info-Tech Can only Innovate to an Extent
6.4: Social Acceptance of Innovative Information Technologies
6.5: Investment Trends of Physical and Social Technologies
6.6: The Human Capacity to Innovate Social-Capital, Social-Software, and Social-Technology
6.7: Informed, Action-Oriented Entities and Societies
Part VII: An ASU Based ‘Research Social-Network’
7.1: A Research Social-Network using Web 2.0 Applications and Guidence
7.2: A Utility for Professors, Students, and Intellectuals
7.3: Mapping Previous Research Paths / Sources /
7.4: Interdisciplinary, Holistic Avenues for Collaboration and Further Research
7.5: Authentic Critiques of Intellectual Research
7.6: Democratic Rating Systems & Ratings of Innovativeness
7.7: Multifaceted, Integrative Problem Solving
Part VIII: Conclusions
8.1: ‘Society 2.0’ Defined in Context
8.2: The Human Understanding of Information Needs to Change
8.3: Can ‘Informed’ Beings Act in ‘Informed’ Ways?
8.3: ‘Society 2.0’ is Individual and Collective Action (IT CAN HAPPEN NOW)(supercede systemic issues
8.4: ‘Society 2.0’ Can Happen or Can Not Happen

Keywords: Social-Technology, Social-Software, Communities of Practice, Bionics, Digital Identity, Collective-Consciousness, Identity 2.0, Web 2.0, Social Media, Temporary Autonomous Zone

Introduction
What is ‘Society 2.0’?
‘Society 2.0’ is the idea that as the tools and processes which guide the use of information technologies continues to orient towards integrative methods of collaboration and information dissemination, a social orientation to becoming ‘informed’ should be more apparent at an individual level. This reorientation at an individual level should create the incentive for communities and society-at-large to therefore use such tools to manage, share, and discover innovative knowledge formations. If individuals are focused on finding the knowledge and information which will allow them to make more ‘informed’ decisions, than the collective actions and developments of society can create alternatives to the societal outcomes we see today. Through various methods of incorporating accessible and searchable interdisciplinary research through online media; ‘Society 2.0’ would use information technology to research, disseminate, collaborate, and coordinate what individuals should do to advance society. Although not considering 'natural' knowledge systems in the statement; in 1964 Oliver W. Holmes wrote “Knowledge exists in two forms: (1) "active knowledge," meaning that to be found in the brains of living human individuals and therefore available to them at any given moment as bases for actions, and (2) "passive (or potential) knowledge," which exists in the great reservoir of documents in which have been recorded the experiences, observations, thoughts, and discoveries of other men, chiefly those of the past”(Holmes 1.) Putting both our active and passive knowledge to action, fully representing our physical selves as the informed beings we are (or will be), and producing outcomes and externalities in the physical world that demonstrate the social understanding of our knowledge is the epistemological crux of “Society 2.0.”

Pt I: The Creation of the Digital Self, Digitized Epistemologies, and Online Collective Consciousness via Social Media

1.1 - Human Information Technologies Evolve

Throughout human existence, the information technologies we utilize have increased in scope, scale, and societal influence; evolving our means to advance society in cognition, responsibility, autonomy, and livelihood (ect). As single entities walking the earth, humans have very little communicative potential to conduct knowledgeable discourse with those individuals who are ‘informed.’ Humankind has progressed through levels of archiving the information we encounter throughout our existence. As far back as the oral traditions of pre-literate humans, we have developed modes of ‘social software’; procedures of society which enables the storing and sharing of information. An example of ‘social software’ from oral traditions would be the use of memory and creating rhymes “or other formulae for linking material together.” (Vansina 2006) For humans, memorization mechanisms which were inherited through the generations did not hold enough ontological weight to be the exclusive ‘social software’ used, so mechanisms for saving the data and metadata of societies were invented. “It was writing that first preserved records through time and permitted the beginning of a reservoir of passive knowledge. Until then a man had only his own observations and experiences to guide him or at most traditions going back a few generations and limited in place to a small neighborhood.” (Holmes 1964) The creation of physical artifice to store memories and information required that skilled people whom were knowledgeable of the praxis of constructing and interpreting recorded information be the individuals whom controlled socially important information. The information technology of writing innovated society because although this activity were exclusive to certain educated people, each generation of humans after this invention passed on important aspects of knowledge for the next generation to draw from. (Holmes 1964) This information technology transformation shifted the preoccupation of individuals from preserving information and ideas, to appraising what information is valuable in what context. Writing; as an information technology, expanding the scope and impact of human activity, and increased the volume of shared human memories. The creation of artifice to manage knowledge also eventually caused “repeatable verisimilitude in the printed word and images through mechanical means.” (Katz 2008 p.176) Although mechanisms for evaluating ‘truth’ and logic have been greatly explored in university systems and in the efforts of intellectuals for centuries, the question of what uses of information technologies will incite further innovation is of importance to our research. Obviously, more technologically advanced methods of categorization and archiving have been developed since the advances of writing-systems, and even since applications of ‘social software’ currently set in place to validate ‘truths’ in intellectual writings. There must be an understanding of how individuals exist over the Internet within communities in order to conceptualize the possible ways humans can utilize information technologies to its fullest potential.

With the invention of the Internet, our individual identities have since become digitized within a global platform of information. As we recognize ourselves in the world as ‘persons’, having ‘identity’; than the representation of ourselves over digital-space would be our ‘digital personhood’ or “digital identity.” A person's 'identity' is the essential and unique characteristics of an entity, like the unchanging physical traits of an individual, that person's preferences, other people’s perceptions of their unique personality, or even the skills that a person possesses. ( A “digital identity” can be defined as a digital representation of a set of claims made by one person about themselves. An individual develops a digital ‘persona’ whereby the person’s identity characteristics attribute to an online role within a community, network, or space. Information which points other users to one’s digital identity, is that which is an ‘identifier’ of that person. Maintaining a 'close relationship' with the actual self to the identifiers which signify a person online is extremely important to not only maintain accurate information on the Internet about yourself, but so that you actively represent yourself as the person you claim to be on the Internet. Mary Rundel has discussed how this close connection to our digital identity could have negative impacts. She says, “the danger is that what is relevant is no longer personhood – the recognition of a person as having status as a person – but rather a profile – the recognition of a pattern of past behaviour.” (Rundel 2007) However, most scholars believe that the Internet will continue to evolve and incorporate methods of thinking about online activity and participating in ways which benefit both the digital representation of an individual and the knowledge base of the person themselves.

Developed by Dick Hardt in 2005, the concept of “Identity 2.0” describes how individuals can more closely link their physical identity with that of their digital identity to eliminate such common fears about the ‘devolution’ of personhood. “Identity 2.0” emphasizes an open process of identity transactions similar to those in the physical world, such as individuals using a driver's license for identification. (Hinchcliffe 2006) Although the concepts and praxis of implementing a closer relationship between physical and digital identities are available, applications have not set the widespread use of “identity 2.0.” The Burton Group Report describes the current situation of digital identity management whereby individuals cannot transition their identities across web-platforms. Mike Neuenschwander said "today's identity systems—which represent a “1.0” architecture, feature strong support for domain management but exhibit scalability and flexibility limitations when faced with the broader identity requirements of Internet scenarios." (Neuenschwander 2006) With this new understanding of how humans can authentically represent themselves over the Internet, the ability to efficiently and effectively verify the credibility of information from other digital identities will more closely link the physical individual to the information one observes via their digital identity.

"Society 2.0: A Narative of the Technological Ripeness for Innovation"

Introduction
Organisms, networks, societies and communities exchange information using interactive modes of communication. These entities utilize methods of information flow through biological and 'artificial' information systems. Information technologies facilitate this process-regardless the medium of communication- enabling organisms, networks, societies and communities to fluidly-direct their actions, based on the information that is available to the network. This is more apparent in the context of how biological systems direct the actions of ‘networks’ based on the information these organisms can perceive. Examples of systems in nature using information in simple social networks to create long-term survival solutions for guiding how the actions of individual organisms should orient to 'socially-create' a reality of the 'betterment' of that organization are seen everywhere. Humans have developed biological information technologies; our senses, being the physiological methods of perceiving and exchanging information. We have also created artifice; physical technologies which amplify our communicative and informational potential. The development of artifice-based, global-‘information systems’ is something that other organisms have not accomplished on earth. This fact may seem like an obvious statement, but the simplicity and interoperability of 'our' unique example of biological information systems being appropriately utilized to innovate "'user-created' information systems of artifice" begs the question of just how technologically advanced methods of exchanging information could be oriented differently? Could informing society in a way which appropriately uses information technologies allow individuals to predicatively organize entire networks; similarly to how biological organisms typically do this for the survival of that 'network' or even species? If humans currently use mainstream media and social-madia information technologies in ways which only minimally inform-- only marginally inspiring social collaboration or participation in how society is guided-- then how can society use the technology currently available to facilitate more informed social actions? ‘Society 2.0’ is the idea that as the ‘social software’ which guides the use of information technologies continues to orient toward integrative methods of collaboration and information dissemination; a social orientation to becoming informed will become apparent at an individual level, providing the incentive for communities and society-at-large to therefore use the tools available to manage, share, and discover innovative knowledge formations; changing the actions and developments of society. Through various methods of incorporating accessible and searchable interdisciplinary research through online media; a ‘Society 2.0’ would use information technology to research, disseminate, collaborate, and coordinate what individuals should do to advance society. Although not considering 'natural' knowledge systems in the statement; in 1964 Oliver W. Holmes wrote “Knowledge exists in two forms: (1) "active knowledge," meaning that to be found in the brains of living human individuals and therefore available to them at any given moment as bases for actions, and (2) "passive (or potential) knowledge," which exists in the great reservoir of documents in which have been recorded the experiences, observations, thoughts, and discoveries of other men, chiefly those of the past.” (Holmes 1964) Putting both our active and passive knowledge to action; fully representing our physical selves as the informed beings we are (or will be); and producing outcomes and externalities in the physical world that demonstrate the social understanding of our knowledge is the epistemological crux of “Society 2.0.”


SO i'm incorporating the review of the literature and reviewing everything i write daily so i don't have a mad edit-dash at the very end. I only have about 13 very thorough pages, but i'm editing them to make them flow better now.

Collective Consciousness and Social Media: Identity Empowerment

From using information technologies, the actual information human beings exchange is becoming more knowledgeable in its content because of peer review, and the critiquing process of ideas in social media. The collective mindset of the individuals within networks creates a group-consciousness, which resonates principles of the specific impact the digital community wants to have on the world.
The collective consciousness of the Internet as a whole exists as an integrated, symbiotic organism. Information processed through social media exists through individual and separate processes- simultaneously flowing from desktop computer, to mobile interface; through servers and within databases- at an incredible scale; interoperatively culminating to form the collective identity of the Internet. Similarly; the information exchanged between single-cellular organisms, and the subsequent creation of multicellular organisms, acts as a biological analogy for the creation of 'digital collective consciousness' in the context of our individual digital identities. Beyond issues about the creation of Internet consciousness; this living organism actively empowers, manipulates, and corrupts the individuals which compose it. (Wright 2007)
The digital identities participating in social media networks all have their own specific agendas, assumptions, knowledge bases, epistemological, fears, and Utopian(or dystopian)views. This is precisely how the collective consciousness of the Internet can in one breath empower philosophy, knowledge, and critical analysis within communities; and in the same instance forcibly indoctrinate, misinform, manipulate, corrupt, and defy its own open-source logic. Depending on where one is situated, social media could create a very frightening form of “techno-anarchy”, hell-bent on falsifying individual perceptions; or it could provide the medium by which individual cognitive advancement is made more real. Viewing Internet consciousness as neither a savior nor a destroyer will change the fact that we have the technology and the incentive to make communication between intellectuals better.
Well informed individuals can use the “social software” available to create platforms for interdisciplinary education in the hopes of empowering individuals to be more knowledgeable about the world around them, disseminating information through social media.(Farkas 2007) This powerful image of collective consciousness in action is a model; exemplifying the essence of what information flow within society should resemble. As we see today; information being exchanged through 'social software' is predominantly about personal preferences, entertainment, cultural trends, and daily plans (among other things.) A common misconception is that the Internet is only effective at exchanging this kind of information. If we insert the massive influence of mainstream media manipulation and corruption of information in this conception of the Internet, there is a continuous information war to make individuals more conscious of some institutionally supported topics as represented from some specific background, field, or transdiscipline. As individuals are bombarded with updated entertainment information and data about their “friends;” combined with the efforts of wealthy institutions that purposefully want to misinform and manipulate (both online and off); people cannot see how simple it can be for individuals to have agency over how plausible, knowledgeable, and credible information is disseminated to society. The Internet's collective consciousness must be aware of institutional/societal factors which impact the way factual information is disseminated and researched. Many organizations have invested a great amount of wealth into disenfranchising the public so that they will not be focused on activism or searching for valid sources of information. The Internet is the platform by which social software can empower social media to physically form the intellectual communities radical activism has been calling for to supersede the influence of these huge institutions on our media.
There are an infinite number of factors which influence what media humans will observe, how we observe it, and to what 'ultimate goal' it is that shifts our individual perception of the information mediated; but I can say that I am certain the information that is exchanged is valuable and powerful if integrated in certain ways. If enough individual parts compile information; organized in the most socially beneficial and useful way(s); than the collective consciousness which blooms will be something philosophically valid, epistemologically sound, and intellectually sustainable. (Sunstein 2008)

Wright, Alex
Glut: Mastering Information Through the Ages. New York: ACM, Joseph Henry Press, 2007
Farkas, Meredith G.

Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online. Medford, NewJersey: Information Today, Inc., 2007

Sunstein, Cass R.
Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. New York: Oxford UP, USA, 2008.

first draft of my grant abstract

here is the first draft of my grant abstract.

For the sustained innovation of digitized intellectual dissemination and research; as well as the cognitive advancement of university faculty and students; online interfaces must be created which utilize the communicative potential of social media within university networks. Social media focused on the multifaceted integration of interdisciplinary information can be utilized to discuss complex social problems. This community could be oriented toward the distribution of knowledge among all participants within the symposium. Due to the fact that understanding complex social problems require interdisciplinary information from scholarly sources, comprehensive analysis, and community praxis; current institutional methods for enacting this process is not effective. Without using digital social communication, individual scholars, university scientists, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, ect. can not proactively integrate enough breadth of interdisciplinary information with the necessary fluidity and comprehensiveness to provide sustainable solutions for society. Another problem is that online scholarship lacks the availability of credible, interdisciplinary, conceptually complex media within a platform which enables authentic critiques the media from its educated body of users. Therefore, information technologies currently provide for the praxis of innovating social networking capabilities so that universities can holistically be utilized as an educational tool through emerging forms of digital media. Digital Identities can integrate their knowledge of complex issues through an online symposium, whereby insights can be disseminated, peer reviewed, incorporated into a digital knowledge base, and analyzed through the intellect and scholarship of the social network itself.


Much of the research i am compiling for my senior seminar project will be the theory behind the creation of the grant project itself. my experiments will be used in both the grant research and for my information theory project in the senior seminar class. i should just refer to my grant project as the "digital dissemination" project... or "DD".

give me some feedback about this abstract for the grant

RAP Session #1 update

My RAP session went extremely well. I have found many more sources, (which I will list at the end)and I feel that I have my work cut out for me in the coming weeks. I remembered a concept over the weekend that I have learned about before, but would find very applicable to my research. This concept is social capital. I think I can refer to the increase in knowledge of digital identities and subsequently social networks in terms of the social capital it provides. Anyway, this will require much more thought and research. I need to conceptualize the structure of my research paper soon. So here is a list of the resources I have found from worldcat, the asu library, and google scholar:

"The Role of Information Technology in Building and Sustaining the Relational Base of Communities" by Marleen Huysman and Volker Wulf
"E-Social Capital: Building Community through electronic networks" by Lisa Hopkins and Julian Thomas
"Knowledge and Learning in online networks in development: a social capital perspective" by Sarah Cummings
"Understanding the Relationship Between Information and Communication Technology and Social Capital" by Song Yang, Heejin Lee, and Sherah Kurnia
"Social Capital and Community Building through Electronic Network" by Liza Hopkins
"Why Should I Share? Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks" by Molly McLure Wasko
"Virtual Community: No 'Killer Implication'" by Andrew Feenberg and Maria Bakardijieva
"The Internet and Political Transformation" by Bruce Bimber
"Knowledge Transfer in Virtual Settings" by Yinglei Wang and Nicole Haggerty
"Social Capital Online, Collective use of the Internet and Reciprocity as Lubricants of Democracy" by Tetsuro Kobayashi, Kenichi Ikeda, and Kakuko Miyata
"Community Informanities" by Keigh Keeble and Brian Loader
"A knowledge transfer framework for virtual projects" by Petra M. Bosch-Sijtsema
"Web Mapping 2.0: The Neogeography of the Geo Web" by Muki Hakl
"CauseWired: plugging in, getting involved, changing the world" by Tom Watson
"Advertising 2.0: Social media marketing in a Web 2.0 world" by Tracy L. Tuten
"Strategies for Online Communities" by Shu-Jou Lin
"Networked Identities: understanding relationships between strong and weak ties in networked environments" by T. Ryberg and M.C. Larsen
"Networked Learning a Relational Approach: Weak and Strong Ties" by C.R. Jones
"Curating Yourself Online" by Esther Dyson
"Technology and Social Inclusion" by Mark Warshauer
"Digital Diversions" by Julian Sefton-Green
"Communities in Cyberspace" by Marc A. Smith