I think the best way to understand the “real” social world is in terms of MOTIVATED INTERPERSONAL ACTIONS. In the Kantian spirit of breaking a topic down into its components, that means we need a theory of action (a major topic in social theory), a theory of motives (which has occupied literary theory as much as social theory), and a theory of interpersonal dynamics (which I happen to think is still beyond our grasp because most of our abstractions involve statics rather than dynamics). In other words we have a long way to go before we understand the social world well enough to take a theoretical approach to managing the changes that arise when new technologies are introduced!

Finally, in case you had not noticed, “legitimate peripheral participation” is just “newspeak” (thank you, George Orwell) for apprenticeship. The world in which JP is now asking questions about “enfranchisement” is a world of educational institutions that have devalued the practice of apprenticeship as some antiquarian artifact from the days of craft workers. I find it sad that, in order to convey its relevance to “knowledge work” (whatever that may mean), we have to dress it up in new terminology!

Thank you for the kind response. It leads me to understanding more the “legitimate peripheral participation.”

SOCIAL issues are situational, a case-by-case judgement where one claimed depends on a particular situation. Say in your example, you said that “all participants were required to identify themselves with a photograph.” Think it is understandable for someone to reject or refuse this kind of requirement (mandatory?) in a social network application due to concerns like those unintended consequences you mentioned. But this claim cannot be true in all cases like in facebook or any other social network apps since it gives us preferences, right to privacy (respect our peace of mind).

Moreover, I agree that the framework is subjective because it is found in our values and meaning. It becomes objective when we test the framework in our action. The exeperiences – which drive from our action – influence others (only if we allow it) and produces social phenomenon that is ligitimate to complement (brings positive impact) or affect (example of a legitimate peripheral participation) one technology like the social network apps.

For me, social is group dynamics and its nature is found based on certain needs. Giving these groups an opportunity to challenge social network apps will help them to see things fit to their needs. The intention is to test or see how far the social network apps would apply and satisfy the needs. Usually in a situation, an issue is raised when this social network apps are challenged by questioning their value, means (features), and meaning (definition). Here the issues needs to be brought out to light for likely actions – reducing negative feedbacks and rejections.

I agree when you said, “and you cannot achieve effective change management without accounting for it.” Thus, the role of Developers and all its stakeholders are important in conceptualizing a killer social network apps.

What do you think?

I wonder how can we introduce more change against this legitimate peripheral participation theory?