“Loser” generated content – and LL

There is something messy about the relationship between users and corporations. (Petersen, 2008:1)

This spring, together with a colleague,  I’ll be running a class on “Audio-visual and digital media as communication tools” for our 6th semester communication students. My perspective will be on the changed conditions for marketing, production, and consumption in relation to new media, and as part of this, I’ll be using a paper by Søren Mørk Petersen entitled “Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation” (2008). In this paper, Petersen offers a critical perspective on the pros and cons of user generated innovation and content creation, and his main point is summarized in the abstract:

For many years the Internet was considered an apt technology for subversion of capitalism by the Italian post–Marxists. What we have witnessed, however, is that the Internet functions as a double–edged sword; the infrastructure does foster democracy, participation, joy, creativity and sometimes creates zones of piracy. But, at the same time, it has become evident how this same infrastructure also enables companies easily to piggyback on user generated content. (Petersen, 2008:1)

What puzzles Petersen is how at the same time new, so-called participatory media enabling user generated content can cause both very positive and very negative user experiences, and Petersen finds some explanation in combining basic principles behind the technologies in question with the logic of capitalism. The paper is good in explaining how we, the users actually pay when using “free” services, technologies, media – something that always seems to surprise the majority of students.

In preparation for this course, I’ve collected case examples from different types of SNSs, external corporate blogging etc. such as Google and Facebook, who – involuntarily – keep feeding into these kinds of discussions. Sometimes I actually appreciate talking about other media than SL, and I had not planned to include it. However, then on February 7th Linden Lab (LL) posted a call for bloggers. The call spurred quite a controversy in the SL related Twitter- and blogsphere, and I think it’ll make a perfect example of the “messy relationship between users and corporations”. So, let’s first have a look on the call:

The blog call from LL.

Basically, LL invites bloggers to submit original posts with “exposure” as only the only payment. This marketing approach isn’t unusual in the Web 2.0 economy, but it soon resulted in some vey negative tweets among some of the SL users I follow, and if you take a look at the comments, people were not impressed by this initiative. Lack of payment was, however not the only reason why some SL users reacted so strongly. The guidelines for submission (depicted below) also caused concerns, and I also think that the history between LL and its users had an important impact on the (negative) reactions.

LL’s guidelines for submission.

Before returning to my own take on this, let me just mention some of the reactions that quickly came about in parts of the SL blogsphere. Besides these authors’ interesting and very different perspectives on this issue, the comments are equally worth reading. One of the first reactions, I noticed was actually a comment made by Crap Mariner on the call – LL decided to delete! the comment, but prior to this, he managed to photo document it. As you can tell, this was a prickly, but satirical comment as was this one posted by Botgirl Questi, which also was deleted! Evidently, any site owner has the prerogative to moderate and even delete comments, but there are better ways of handling the process, and I’ll return to that. Inara Pey’s post “LL calls on bloggers, bloggers call out LL” fits in the more negative category, as does Chestnut Rau’s “ LL says “Calling all bloggers“, and Hamlet Au’s “SL bloggers wonder about blogging for SL on an unpaid basis“. Prokofy Neva’s “What, the Lindens do an open call for bloggers instead of a closed fic thing and you’re bitching?!” was one of the first posts I read in favor of LL’s approach, and Gwyneth Llewelyn’s “Working for free for Linden Lab’s blog” was also quite positive. Though not wanting to contribute herself, Tateru Nino also applauds the initiative in “A good effort“, and even though I don’t agree completely, I agree that the idea was good, but very, very badly executed. As an academic, I’m not used to being payed (at least not directly) for writing, and I do “love to write about Second Life”, but I will not be contributing, and this mainly has to do with the guidelines and LL’s general approach to its users.

In terms of payment, I’m not so dismayed as other SL users. From a strictly economical point of view, I think the “exposure payment” is defensible, given that for some SL users, this could actually be of great interest. When Hamlet Au contacted LL for a comment on the lack of payment, the answer confirmed that LL thought such an arrangement would be “appealing” to some of its users. However, from a PR point of view, I do think LL (again) is out of touch with some of the more critical SL users and that paying even a small sum would have bought LL a priceless amount of good will.

As an academic, I’m used to “submission guidelines”, but when reading LL’s Community Participation Guidelines, there’s a lack of transparence in terms of by whom and based on what criteria, potential submissions would be assessed. Even though this blog mainly is a manifestation of my personal views, I do try to follow general academic practice, and furthermore I try to maintain my academic integrity. Part of being an academic means providing a critical perspective on given phenomena, and I would seriously doubt that LL would accept posts pointing to some of the more critical issues concerning the use of SL. Since, the LL initiative clearly is a marketing effort, and that LL, in my opinion, suffers from a rather severe “fear of critique”, as they so clearly demonstrated by deleting Crap and Botgirl’s comments, my concern would be that LL would only want “Hollywood pretty painting pictures” – just as their marketing material in general. The great irony being that if LL admitted to certain critical issues, new users of SL probably would be better prepared for the SL experience and maybe wouldn’t leave so quickly due to unmet expectations. LL rightfully reserves the right to review and edit, and that is normal procedure when you pay somebody, however since LL doesn’t, a more sympathetic approach would be to do this in collaboration with the author(s), and an additional benefit would be that LL actually could learn something from this experience by connecting with its users.

Sadly, I’m no longer convinced that LL really wants to connect with its users, and what really sickens me is the way LL has handled this affair. Moderating posts is ok, but deleting posts that have already “aired”, and ignoring criticism only gets the opposite effect of what was wanted. It exposes a company afraid of critique and in desperate need of a PR person, and in general it adds to a very unprofessional image. I’ve been in SL for almost five years now, because despite all its shortcomings, I still consider it to be an amazing platform for all sorts of purposes. Nonetheless, I’m still surprised when LL repeatedly fails to communicate and connect with its users. LL really needs to hire someone to come and clean up this “mess” to avoid further feelings of exploitation – someone who’d genuinely appreciate the beauty and potentials of user generated innovation and content creation!


Consequences of Walking the Walk

While we’re waiting for the top management of Google to clarify and elaborate on the surprising (1,2) and controversial statement from Google’s executive chairman, Mr. Schmidt, (paraphrased by Andy Carvin) on G+ primarily being an “identity service”, rather that a social network (3), I want to reflect a bit on what leaving G+ and FB has meant for me personally and professionally as an educator and researcher.

On August 2nd 2011, I chose to close my FB account. My leaving FB was greatly inspired by leaving G+  just a few days earlier. Even though FB and G+ are two very different services provided by two very different companies, there are also certain resemblances and my main arguments for leaving FB were similar to leaving G+. I left both services because I disagree on their ToS. Besides concerns regarding intellectual property, neither system allows its customers to use pseudonyms, but insists on enforcing a “real name” policy. I realize, that I’m a very privileged person, because I’m currently not in need of using a pseudonym, but I have chosen to do so in many online services (ironically not on FB and G+), and I understand and respect other people’s need and choice to use pseudonyms. In short, I chose to leave FB and G+ in protest and out of solidarity. And yes, I know that in some parts of the world, solidarity is a intimidating concept, but to me it is one of the most important human virtues and a cornerstone of Democracy (4). The decision to leave did not come easy, but I did so “eyes wide open” understanding there would be consequences.

In an excellent post on why she chose to leave G+, Gwyneth Llewelyn, a fellow SL-resident who uses a pseudonym, explains why some users of social networks feel more or less forced to participate (5) – in this case FB:

I just joined because, well, nobody who is serious about social networking and online communities can afford not to be on Facebook, even if they don’t use it much.

I can easily relate to that. I was an active user of FB for 3 years. However, unlike many others, I didn’t use it for private reasons, but mainly as a platform to connect with colleagues and students. Having been involved in online and distance education since 2003 on a professional level, connecting f2f is rarely an option, and social networks are simply more appealing than most educational LMSs. On a personal level, I don’t miss FB, and I guess I’ve come to realize that I’m just not that (kind of) social.  However, on a more professional level I’m most certainly missing out. I was recently invited to participate in a research workshop, and as part of this participants were encouraged to discuss workshop topics prior to the actual event – I guess to enable people to get acquainted and give the organizers a better idea of what participants would find valuable. Great idea, except it is intended to take place in a FB group. And this of course leads back to the quote from Gwyneth, given the popularity of FB (although I don’t buy the whole 750 mio. unique, real name user stat), it is not surprising that organizers of any events tend to think “everybody is there, so lets utilize that to reach as many as possible”. I would have made the same assumption not so long ago.

Fortunately, FB is only  a social network (as opposed to G+ – I’ll return to that shortly), and besides not having access to more or less relevant information, so far the most significant professional consequence has to do with 3rd party services that exclusively use FB-login for authentication. An example of this could be Kitely, a virtual world service where I had a presence as part of my research. I never really used it though, mainly because it didn’t make sense to me to use my “wallet” name in that context, and I never understood why a service clearly aimed at (SL) avatar-users would require this kind of authentication. Nonetheless, these example illustrate the kind of problems I most likely will experience more of in the future …

Source: Botgirl Questi (6)

Despite the fact that I only spent two weeks on G+, I did see a great potential in terms of social networking (also in an educational setting), and though I don’t miss it, I do feel left out, when connections refer to it. As earlier mentioned, I chose to leave, so yes, you could say that it is my “own fault” (as someone told me). Solidarity is difficult to explain to privileged people with no empathy, so I’m not even going to try. Instead, I’ll focus on a more practical and selfish reason to opt out. One of the things that really surprised me about Google by my time of leaving was the way it treated its customers, the “guilty, until proven innocent” approach, which really is quite the opposite of what we in the Western part of the world are used to (7). G+ users who were suspected of violating the ToS were simply suspended without warning. Later on, Google renounced on that practice and now gives a 4-day “grace period” (8). But here is the chilling part; when suspended and if banned you are at risk of loosing access to all of your Google services, yes all!


In my work as a researcher and educator, I have been using quite a few of Google’s services; docs, picasa, reader, gmail to name a few. When I witnessed how Google enforced its policy, I decided that a network, where people can flag each other with no apparent proof (it is only up to the accused to prove him-/herself innocent), really wasn’t worth the risk – especially not a network, where a lot of the people I normally connect with, are excluded. Judging from conversations in the social media sphere, a great deal of people doesn’t understand the “fuss about names and Google in general”, and there are a lot of Schmidt’y comments such as “love it or leave it”. I wish it were just that simple. Bonnie Nadri has written an excellent post explaining “those who say “they don’t get it” … (Google, G+, etc)”what this really is all about (9).  It’s not only about names and whether or not you can participate in a given network – it’s about fundamental human rights, intellectual property, surveillance and much, much more. All things, that not only affect “people with strange names”, but all of us.

So how has not being on G+ affected me? Not so much on a personal level. The people I truly care about, I connect with elsewhere. However, from a professional point of view there are several consequences. I teach and research Information and Communication Technology used in various fields and subject areas. This fall, I’ll be teaching 5 different classes, both on- and off-campus. I had planned to use several of Google’s services in all of those, but now I’m looking for alternatives. I’m not going to ban Google’s services in my classes, it is not really my place to do so, but on the other hand I’m no longer going to endorse its products, and I will use this controversy to spark (!) discussion and reflection on some of the issues raised above. I’m quite sure it will be possible to teach without Google, but it is frustrating, because I actually liked its services a lot. Many of my colleagues use gdocs as preferred collaborative tool, so I’m not quite ready to leave all of Google – yet. G+ is still, as has been said many times by its defenders, a product in beta, and there will be changes, but I doubt that it will cave in on the name/privacy issue (10). Precisely because it still is in beta, and hereby limited by an invitation-only policy, we have yet to see the true impact it’ll have in the field of social media. The good thing that can come from this is that the debate (although still fairly limited to geeks and tech-savvy people) has the potential to raise awareness about some very important issues – and this is also why I’ve chosen to blog about it.

I talked the talk, but have yet to discover fully what it means to walk the walk …


(1) This expression of Google's view on freedom of expression, privacy, and anonymity from 2007 is a good example of why so many users believed the "do no evil" motto and trusted Google with their information.
(2) On the other hand, if we had payed closer attention to Mr. Schmidt, such as in these  All Things Digital interviews just prior to the launch of G+, there is nothing surprising about Google's actions.
(3) Botgirl located this interview with Mr. Smidth, where he confirms the part about G+ as "identity service".
(4) In this video series Tony Benn discusses the origin of  "Democracy as one of the Big Ideas That Changed The World" - especially in part 5 Benn highlights the influence of the Internet.
(5) On a related note a newly released study from Pew Research Centre shows that 65% of adult Americans use social networking sites.
(6) Although I'm not shedding any tears over this (I have two kitties!), I really appreciate Botgirl's satirical, clever, and creative inputs - her blog, flickr, vimeo, and aggregation of #nymwars stories.
(7) Lauren Weinstein wrote a very good and informative post on this back in July.
(8) This talk between Stilgherrian and Skud gives a good overview of the nymwar, the name issues, and Google. Stilgherrian has had his G+ supsended because his mononym (but legal name) doesn't comply to the ToS, and Skud has also been suspended, and she's a former Google employee.
(9) Nadri has covered the nymwar in several posts on her blog and offers good advice to those who may wish to leave Google's services.
(10) Pete Cashmore offers a perspective on why Google  will never change its mind.

Uh, a final note to the reader who sent me a message complaining that my English isn't perfect. I know. If you took the time to carefully read my profile, you'd know that I'm not a native speaker. I'm, however exercising my freedom of expression, and perhaps you should appreciate the fact that I'm trying to write in a language that you too understand - instead of being offended. #justthinkin'

G+ – and minus

Despite officially being on vacation, I’ve been trying out some of the tech’s on my “to-explore-list”, most notably Google’s G+ service. I signed in to G+ on July 13th, but two weeks later, I decided to close my account. Since some of the people I had in my circles are also people I know from Facebook, I decided to post a short notice on Facebook just to let them know that I’d left the G+ service. When asked why, these were some of my immediate reasons:

I disagree on the terms of service, especially the part that excludes people in need of pseudonyms, and I’m shocked by the way, Google treats its customers. I had hoped G+ could replace FB/Twitter, but a service that excludes a large part of Internet users, incl. my personal network (and not only avatars), is of no use to me. G+ has been an eye-opener for me in terms intellectual property and cloud computing, and I’ll write a post about it since I think it has implications in an educational and democratic perspective …

Now, Internet law, ToS, intellectual property, etc. are not topics I normally deal with, so this post is simply an account of my personal experience as a “regular” user/customer of Google services. As so many other tech-oriented educators, I enjoy exploring new technologies in terms of educational potential, and this professional interest was if fact my initial reason to start on G+. I was especially excited about the possibility to “circle” connections allowing me to control communication, the prospect of being able to create synchronous “hangouts”, create “sparks”, and the integration with other Google services seemed like a very convenient solution. Despite my current hesitation towards G+, I still believe it is a service with huge educational potential – this doc explores some of these potentials.

Having done research in Second Life (SL) since March 2007, I’ve come to know and respect SL users as tech-savvy, early adopters and so of course my SL connections were some of the first people I added to my circles. In hindsight, it is no surprise that it was through my SL connections, my avatar friends that I first came to hear about the pseudonymity controversy. Not until recently has it been possible to sign up for SL by using your own name, consequently all SL users are used to using pseudonyms, many (myself included) use these pseudonyms in other Internet services, and in fact many SL users are only known by their pseudonym/avatar names. However, Google decided for a non-pseudonym (albeit unclear) policy, and shortly after I entered G+, I started noticing reports of SL/pseudonym-users being excluded from the service. From my research in virtual worlds, I’m fully aware that the mere idea of having a “virtual identity” that somehow differs form a “real identity” is something that provokes the ignorant and often causes controversy, and I honestly don’t think this non-pseudonym problem had gained much attention had it not affected many other users besides avatars. But it did/it does, and soon the controversy hit other media and G+ itself. I’m not going to repeat the controversy, but will link to this excellent post by Kee Hinckley, who elaborates on the issue, the pros and cons, and links to some of the articles written on the subject.

As stated in my own quote above, I was shocked by the way, Google treats its customers. I don’t usually use words like “shocked” when reflecting on professional matters, but it is the truth. I admit that up until now I’ve been incredibly naïve about ToS and intellectual property, I also admit that I often have not taken the time to thoroughly read ToS (not only on Google), but simply have accepted these in a “well, what else can I do” (stupid, stupid!) manner.  And so, I was shocked reading Thomas Monopoly’s story. Followed by a brief automated statement by Google saying that it had “perceived a violation”, Google decided to close all of Monopoly’s services with Google. As it later turned out, Monopoly (as he explains here) had in fact violated the Google ToS unintentionally by posting a series of pictures on The Evolution of Sex (as part of an art project) in which one was flagged as child pornography by Google’s automated systems. It is not for me to question the violation, and it is of course Google’s right to enforce its policy. I am, however, questioning Google’s procedure. The Monopoly case had nothing to do with the pseudonymity controversy, but it revealed how Google handles its business and its customers. The “guilty, until proven innocent” approach, is also the way Google handles pseudonymity issues – e.g. this, this, and this case. The  last case is especially grotesque since this G+ user actually used his real names. Again, I’m not questioning Google’s legal rights, but from a moral point of view, I do find its way of enforcing its rules and regulations very dubious – Jyri Engeström has written an excellent comment on this – in G+ !

Here I’m only referring to a few examples in the Google controversy, but to sum up seeing part of my network being excluded combined with an unclear and sometimes unwarranted procedure, I decided to close my account. I did not use my pseudonym in G+, and I did not intend to violate Google’s ToS. But I lost my confidence in Google. Up until now, I’ve been a satisfied user of several of Google’s services, but now I’ve started to export my content to other providers – not that I have any immediate intentions of leaving my other Google services, I like them and I am a creature of habit, but just in case … and this leads me to the educational perspective on all of this.

For the last couple of years, Personal Learning Environments (PLEs)/Networks (PLNs) have been concepts explored by many tech-oriented educators who have a wish to try and tear down the walls of education and especially traditional Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs)/Learning Management Systems (LMS’) in order to open up education to the rest of the world, and Cloud Computing has been a central concept in this work. I entered G+ thinking that maybe here Google had come up with an interesting solution that could supplement our efforts in this area. However, the returning problem of using (free) hosted services is that of property, and ever so often, I hear system administrators express reluctance towards moving our activities into the “Cloud”. In this Google controversy, I’ve seen the “well, what did you expect – it is a free service” argument in several comments. Well, frankly I do expect even a free service provider to treat its customers right. I would also argue that the term “free” is debatable; we the customers “pay” with our content/our behavior. If the free service providers didn’t make any money on us, they wouldn’t be doing it. Again, this is not my area of expertise, I just call it as I see it, but I must admit that this Google experience has made me very conscious of the pitfalls of moving our content and practices out of our safe, but closed and proprietary VLE. Sadly in this way, I also think the Google controversy can be a set-back in terms of loosening up the traditional educational boarders, and this will not only affect Google’s own services, but also those of other providers.

My final reflection on this combines the educational perspective with that of democratization. Some months ago, I wrote a post in relation to the “Purpose of Education” (Purpos/ed) initiative. In this post I referred to the Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to education,  and in my perspective this must include rights to information and the freedom of expression. Incidentally, the UN Human Rights Committee, only this week released a general comment stating that the right to freedom of expression outweighs all other rights.

Previously, and probably naively, I’ve always considered Google to be an important player in the democratization of information, but based on my current experience with G+, I’m wondering what role Google actually sees itself playing, I’m honestly surprised by Google, and I admit, I expected a different approach, when first we heard of Google wanting to launch an alternative to Facebook. Even though my faith in Google has been shattered, I’ve not completely given up (not that I think it cares, but maybe it should), and I do recognize that G+ has been in beta. However, being in beta does not mean “do evil, and sort it out afterwards” – it means “do no evil, to begin with”. I’m truly hoping Google will listen to its customers, and learn. If nothing else, I hope Google recognizes that the controversy and the many reactions by and large reflect that people care – care about Google, and more importantly care about people.


Design and Education Thinking with Gregory and Moholy-Nagy

This week I’ve been attending both a seminar and a PhD course with Judith Gregory, Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology and Anne Marie Kanstrup, Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University. This post is mainly an overview of my impressions from the seminar – I’ll return to more explicit content issues and a few but very important decisions I’ve made based on especially the PhD course.

On Tuesday, January 13th Gregory was invited to speak at an internal ELL seminar. Besides Gregory, Kanstrup and ELL’s leader, Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld (my main PhD supervisor) we were 8 PhD candidates and researchers from ELL and two researchers from Department of Development and Planning. After Dirckinck-Holmfeld had given a short introduction to ELL and the general research and educational /pedagogical strategies of Aalborg University, we all described our research interests to give Gregory an overview of the multidisciplinary field we’re working in.

Colleagues in the E-Learning Lab

Gregory then introduced her background, which in the short version includes the following:

  • Institute of Design, IIT, Chicago (since 2005)
  • University of Oslo, Department of Informatics (2001-2005 faculty, 1999-2000 research fellow)
  • Oslo School of Architecture & Design (2003-2006 Professor II, Doctoral Research)
  • Ph.D. in Communication, University of California-San Diego (2000) (Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition & 3 areas)

When describing her current research interest, it became evident that we would be able to find common ground in many areas:

  • Formal scientific contributions and social commitments & social inclusion
  • Transdisciplinarity in design: thinking across domains & disciplines
  • Social practices basis for understanding users
  • International and inter-cultural collaboration
  • Reciprocal understanding across context
  • Design for negotiation of disparate logics

Judith Gregory

Besides showing us a number of very interesting case studies she has been involved in, Gregory also shared a very thoughtful and quite progressive statement from the prospectus brochure made by the founder of the School of Design (Institute as of 1944), Lázló Moholy-Nagy back in 1939:

Moholy-Nagy’s 1939 statement

Unfortunately this picture is rather unclear, but what I found especially remarkable was Moholy-Nagy’s thoughts on the teacher-student relationship and the potential fruitful learning process:

In the School of Design, the student’s self-expression is never compared with the work of a past “genius”. On the contrary, instead of studying the master, the student is encouraged and urged to study that which the great man himself studied in his day – those fundamental principles and facts on which all design of all times is based. Instead of relying on some other man (however ingenious) to describe truth to him, the student here must study here first of all the truth itself. Just as the genius of old had to do, the student must “strike down to bed rock” and build upward for himself, within himself, gaining that happy status of self-experience and experimentation which is the true source of creative achievements.

Then he is ready to study tradition and the contributions of bygones geniuses, enriching his own knowledge by the fruits of their discoveries.

On a more personal level, Gregory told us that her father actually studied under Moholy-Nagy, and that this was one of the reasons why she had found it difficult not to accept the offer of coming to work at the Institute of Design when she was given that opportunity. Another more professional reason for working at the institute was that it has continued to honor and respect the pedagogical foundations of Moholy-Nagy.

moholy-nagy_portrait2Lucia Moholy, László Moholy-Nagy
1926 © Bauhaus-Archiv, Berlin

In a truly inspiring paper on Moholy-Nagy’s Design Pedagogy, Findelli (1990) describes how Moholy-Nagy developed his pedagogy based on Bauhaus pedagogy, Goethe’s Naturphilosphie and Dewey’s pragmatism.

In bridging the social responsibility with a scientific method based on intuition and problem based experimentation facilitated by a nondirective, noninterventionist, and nonviolent teacher it’s my impression that Moholy-Nagy managed to found a visionary pedagogical philosophy and practice that must have been (and maybe still is) quite provocative and radical to many educators. Findelly (1990:19) concludes that “the general pedagogical approach of Moholy-Nagy, if correctly adapted to the new circumstances, still constitutes a valid preparation toward the tasks that await future designers”. So let me finish this post by quoting Moholy-Nagy once again, this time on his thoughts on designers:

To be a designer means not only to sensibly manipulate techniques and analyze production processes, but also to accept the concomitant social obligations … Thus quality of design is dependent not alone on function, science, and technological processes, but also upon social consciousness. (from Findelli. 1990:19)

Personally, I could rather easily replace designer and design with educator and education hereby deducing that educators are a certain type of designers!

After the seminar we were all invited to Dirckinck-Holmfeld and her husband Arne Remmen’s house for dinner where we continued more informal talks on design, education, politics and democracy, which was a beautiful way to end a perfect day :-)

Lone and Arne’s kitchen



Findelli, A. (1990): Moholy-Nagy’s Design Pedagogy in Chicago (1937-46)
Design Issues, Vol. 7, No. 1, Educating the Designer (Autumn, 1990), pp 4-19
The MIT Press

Does in-world teaching include anonymous acting?

Preparing for a class next week I’ve been revisiting some of the resources that I’ve recommended for my MIL students. One of the articles, Jolly (2006), I’ve chosen because it describes the multiple roles of the in-world teacher. Based on a triple case study conducted in-world during term three of 2006 at Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE (GippsTAFE™) in south-east Victoria, Jolly has identified several roles of the teacher – here listed numerically to ease my reference:

  1. Teacher as explorer
  2. Teacher as a learner
  3. Teacher as avatar
  4. Teacher as a client
  5. Teacher as  inductor
  6. Teacher as guide
  7. Teacher as planner
  8. Teacher as innovator
  9. Teacher as debriefer
  10. Teacher as an industry expert
  11. Teacher as preparer
  12. Teacher as facilitator
  13. Teacher as communicator

Besides the roles 4 and 10, which are directly linked to the subject matter in the cases and 3, which of course is distinct for teaching in virtual worlds, I don’t think the identified roles differ that much from conventional teaching – at least not when I compare the list to my own and my colleagues teaching at E-Learning Lab in general, and at MIL in particular. Teaching in an age heavily influenced by new technology and the Internet, in my opinion, naturally calls for multiple roles of the teacher, it is however interesting to see the roles listed, which also is one of the reasons why I recommend this article to my students.

Another argument for introducing the students to this article is much more important though. I think this article invites (even provokes) for discussions regarding the teacher’s ethical responsibilities. Returning to the 3rd role, teacher as an avatar, Jolly states:

It is important that the teacher has a number of avatars, each performing a different role. Their appearance, character traits, language, ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ may vary significantly. The students may not know who is behind any given avatar. (Jolly, 2006:8 – my highlight)

And Jolly continues explaining:

In the real world, the students clearly knew myself (Malcom Jolly) and fellow project team member Glenda McPherson through a range of face-to-face meetings/discussions with them. When we were in Second Life as Malcolm Dalgleish and Glenda Arrow, the students knew that we were behind the characters and this served an important role. As Glenda and Malcolm, the students knew that they could always turn to us for support/assistance. For some students this was very important and reassuring. (ibid: 8 – my highlight)

However, at other times Jolly played out the role of a different character:

As GippsTAFE Gonzales, the owner of GippsTAFE Island, my attire was more formal; I acted differently and exhibited different characteristics to Malcolm Dalgleish. I didn’t offer assistance unless specifically asked for it. From the student’s perspective, all they knew was that I was one of the project team. (ibid: 8 – my highlight)

Continuing the role-playing, Jolly sometimes acted as 4) a client in the “painting and decorating” class:

My role was to be the client, meet the student and discuss with them the type of refurbishment I wanted in my house. The students did not know who I was or where in the real world I was located. I was simply ‘the client’. In order to get to know me the student had to question me, ascertain my ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ or form assumptions based on my appearance or mannerisms. (ibid: 9 – my highlight)

Jolly sums up the experience of using different avatars/identities:

It is important that students know support is available through particular people (avatars) but it can also be extremely powerful for the teacher to assume other identities. These characters may simply be people passing by or standing around observing – their use provides the teacher with wonderful material when conducting a debriefing session. (ibid: 9)

I do believe that one of the great pedagogical potentials in avatar-based teaching and learning lies in the possibility to role-play, and I suppose Jolly and his colleagues were trying to enhance authenticity by acting out different characters. Want I don’t understand, is the need for anonymity, and I have to say that this example oversteps some of my personal ethical boundaries. Wouldn’t it be possible to role-play without anonymity, I mean, doesn’t acting exactly entail that you assume a different character? To me one of the most important roles of the teacher – if not the most important – is to be trustworthy, and that simply doesn’t align with acting anonymously in my point of view.

I’m greatly puzzled by this, since Jolly in so many other parts of the article expresses some very emphatic and sympatric thoughts. The 3 cases were conducted mainly at closed islands in-world, and I realize that the students were aware that they might encounter anonymous project staff members, but I still find it problematic to use anonymity like this in an educational context.

Nevertheless, the article makes for interesting discussions on the whole anonymity issue of online teaching and learning, and I’m looking forward to hearing my students’ responses to this.