Why do we need social networks?   That was not a rhetorical question but a profound one when David Gibson, of the Global Challenge Project, asked it today.   Why do we even bother with social networking?  Is it for PR?  Is it to get out the word about our project?  If that is the case, then the next "why" question is why is it important to get out the word about our project?  What do we hope to accomplish?   He asked this at a webinar on Social Networking for a Social Purpose organized by Sheryl Grant and conducted by our Director of New Media Strategies, Ruby Sinreich.  

The webinar was a networking opportunity for the winners of our HASTAC/MacArthur Digital Media and Learning Competition.  And sometime soon we will be posting the presentation and so others can learn from it.  Ruby has kindly agreed to answer any question about social networking for a social purpose that anyone might want to ask her.   So stay tuned!   Ruby is known in non-profit circles for her pioneering work in this, and today she gave us all an overview, not of the software or hardware but of the motivations for our social networking.  It was in response to the series of slides that David asked the big question:  "What are your intentions?"

When we are doing good works in our own local communities, we can usually ask the question simply and directly.  If we are building stronger dams so the city doesn't flood, we know what to do and we know when we have succeeded.  The dam is finished and it holds the next time there is a deluge.  What if we are, like David, spearheading an amazing form of "project-based learning and scholarship program for high school students . . .  that engages small teams in studying science, technology, engineering and mathematics in order to solve global problems"?   How do you measure success when your goals are that expansive?  And how does social networking accomplish that goal?  What is the relationship between communication online and solving global problems worldwide?   Is it possible that you can unite small groups of high school students online to find engineering solutions to that dam . . .and maybe get them out there building it?

I had lots of takeaways from today's webinar.   The first (duh) is that multiple-caller web conference systems are still transitional. We've used three or four different services now and each one presents frustrations. Losing half an hour at the beginning with confusing instructions (our fault--we were just learning the ins and outs of this particular system) and rickety connections is not a way to get a great group collective-and-sharing dynamic going.  (Live and learn:  next time, we'll have one extra person on board simply to be working on technical issues so the speaker can concentrate on the content.  We had two.  Voice of Experience:  You really need three:  one speaker plus one facilitator and back-channel guide plus an extra person just to work on technical matters, hookups, side conversations about problems and maybe one extra back up for all of that. It all should be easy.  It isn't.  We had pdf's ready as a back-up plan for the visuals; we had the chat channel as a back-up plan for voice issues.  Turns out you really need a back-up plan to the back-up plan to the back-up plan for interface issues that are quite particular to this or that individual.)

Special thanks to the participants for hanging in there.  As someone very kind and wise said, "We're all technology geeks.  We know these things happen." 

Here's a confession.  I must admit that my patience seems to be way too short when it comes to, sigh, "affordances."  I admire Ruby for not losing it (I would have) when there were difficulties getting people on line, echoes on the phone lines, slides galloping wilfully away, more echoes . . .     Ruby is a pro at this but the media, well, sometimes it just hurts the message.  

[Then again, I think about the hilarious schtick of comedian Louis C.K., "Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy," about how quickly we have come to expect our technologies to be perfect right out the gate.  I mean, I was frankly annoyed to spend the first thirty minutes futzing around, then realized, if we had gotten all 25 of us together for a f2f conversation, from as far away as Mexico, Amsterdam, and India and all points in between, it would have taken each of us a day or several days. Cost is another factor.  It cost us probably $300-400 or so to host the call, and cost the users probably $5 to $50 depending on their long-distance carrier.   Flying 25 people in for a f2f would have been tens of thousands of dollar, plus the lost time in preparation and in travel.  So that is the perspective.  But I find it very hard to remember that and I'm betting we all do.  He's great to watch on a day when the cell phone breaks, the server's down, or the echo on the conference call means it's easier typing on the Chat in the back channel than actually speaking into the phone since turning off the Mute sends the echoes around the world again.  Sigh.  That's the moment when Louis C.K. pops into mind--along, I admit it, with frustration.  (If you haven't seen Louis C.K. on this, here's the url:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk ).]

Okay, so I got over being grumpy.   And not only enjoyed the slide presentation, the chance to exchange ideas with DML winners, but I loved the back channel.  In thirty minutes, one group in the NY area had already come up with a meet-up, several good suggestions came out about future connections, use of the list servs, other ways to get together, topics for other discussions.  

But back to David's question, as inspired by Ruby's challenges today.   There are no easy answers but the whole point is that social networking isn't very important unless we ask that question.   And the answer is variable.   For example, if our goal is mostly at spurring new learning uses of media, we may need an approach that reaches out specifically to others in the digital media and digital learning community.  If our goal is to create social change through the use of new media, our closest allies may be other social activists, some of whom may not use digital media at all in their mission.  If our goal is addressing under-served populations, our method, our sources, our contacts, our networks, and our mode of outreach will be radically different than if our target audience is the innovative digital entrepreneur community.

That may seem obvious but when one's topics are as dispersed and broad-based as the projects in the Digital Media and Learning Competition group, those are essential questions.  And I'm guessing that most people who think they have to use new social networking sites and tools, don't stop to ask themselves the "intention" question first.  

Thanks, David, for speaking up and asking a question that certainly has had me thinking for the last few hours.  Thanks, Sheryl, for organizing the webinar.  And thanks, Ruby, for shouldering on despite technical challenges and for going to that deeper level of asking us all the "how" and the "why" questions.   

If you would like to read more about the Digital Media and Learning Competition winning projects, here's the url for the spot on our HASTAC site:    http://www.hastac.org/dml-competitions/2009