Sull, E. (2009). The (almost) complete guide to effectively managing threaded discussions. Distance Learning, 6(4), 65-70.

Categories: Technology, Communication Design

Summary:

Sull provides his insights on managing threaded discussions in online classrooms in this opinion paper. He provided no references or outside research to support his claims beyond his own personal experiences, leaving his ideas--though good--without the traditional rigor and support expected in peer reviewed journals. Perhaps he felt the ideas are so widely accepted that they did not merit such support, or perhaps his audience is those entering the field who are merely looking for good ideas. Some of his ideas are good. Some are quite suspect and many exceptions to the "rule" exist.

Here are his suggestions:

p. 66

• Be sure your students are fully aware of all discussion expectations.
• Give students examples of quality and not-so-good discussion postings.
• Be the first person to post in each threaded discussion.
• Always give a summary posting on the last day of each threaded discussion.
• Be positive and non-judemental in all responses to student postings. 
• In proactive and reactive postings make occasional use of your experiences--and their experiences. 
• After each of your postings, end with a specific question or two to the class. 

p. 67

• Remain enthusiastic and interested about the postings throughout the thread.
• Be a frequent presence in each discussion thread--but also know the importance of being absent.
• Limit your number of short postings.
• Be sure to transition a previous week's discussion thread to the next one. 
• Keep students from straying off topic in their postings.
• Be on the lookout for students who tend to dominate postings.

p. 68

• Post additional resources to give added interest to discussion topics.
• Be personal in responses by responding specifically to content in student posts and by using students' names.
• Remind students of the assigned reading material that relates to the discussion topic. 
• For students hesitant to post ask them to be in charge of a discussion. 
• Call on colleagues for input an suggestions, and offer the same to them. 

p. 69

• If feasible use student teams in discussion threads.
• Be sure to respond quickly to students' quentions of you.
• Create a variety of posts to keep students more engaged.
• Be care of killing a thread by posting too much or giving a 'dead-end' post. 
• Be always aware of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. 
• Have students post practical applications of discussion topics if necessary.

p. 70

• Change discussion topics if it better fits the week. 
• If you create your own threaded discussion threads each week, do so wisely.
• Always give constructive feedback.

 

Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness online: What the research tells us. Elements of quality online education, practice and direction, 4(1), 13-47.

Categories: Research Methods, Technology, Communication Design

Summary:

Swan produced this literature review to explore the research on learning effectiveness in asynchronous online environments. She compiled a collection of significant research projects that indicated there is no significant difference (or positive differences) between online and traditional learning. Her review references over 355 reports, summaries, and papers to that effect. She also found some instances where studies reported significantly worse results in online courses. These were in the minority.

To address the differences in the studies and results, Swan examined and critiqued the current research from Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer's 'Community of Inquiry' model for online learning. Her three tables comparing research findings and implications for practice in the appendix may help online education practitioners to quickly understand the implications of her research.

Citation-worthy:

"LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS means that learners who complete an online program receive educations that represent the distinctive quality of the institution. The goal is that online learning is at least equivalent to learning through the institution’s other delivery modes, in particular through its traditional face-to-face, classroom-based instruction.. . . Interaction is key (Sloan Consortium Elements of Quality: The Sloan-C Framework. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for OnLine Education, 2002" (Swan, 2003, p. 1).

"Central to the concepts of both learning and computer mediation is the notion of interaction. Interaction refers to reciprocal events involving at least two actors and/or objects and at least two actions in which the actors, objects, and events mutually influence each other [27]. No matter what learning theories we hold -- behaviorist, constructivist, cognitivist, or social -- reciprocal events and mutual response in some form must be integral to our notions of how we learn" (Swan, 2003, p. 4).


Researchers concerned with computer-based education have identified three kinds of interactivity that affect learning: interaction with content, interaction with instructors, and interaction among peers. Interaction with content refers both to learners' interactions with the course materials and to their interaction with the concepts and ideas they present. Interaction with instructors includes the myriadways in which instructors teach, guide, correct, and support their students. Interaction among peers refers to interactions among learners which also can take many forms -- debate, collaboration, discussion, peer review, as well as informal and incidental learning among classmates. Each of these modes of interaction support learning and each can be uniquely enacted in online learning Environments. Of course, none of the three modes of interaction function independently in practice. Interaction amongstudents, for example, is supported by instructor facilitation and support, and, because it centers on content, can be seen as a variety of that type of interaction. Thus, a useful way of thinking about the  three forms of interaction is provided by Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer’s 'community of inquiry' model of online learning. If one equates cognitive presence in this model with interaction with content, teaching presence with interaction with instructors, and social presence with interaction among students, it gives a good representation of how all three work together to support learning online. At the same time it should be remembered that both teachers and students have social presence, that in many online courses, both teachers and students teach, and that learning is always learning of content" (Swan, 2003, p. 4).

       Interaction with content section:

"Janick & Liegle have synthesized the work of a range of instructional design experts in these areas to develop a list of ten concepts that support the effective design of web-based instruction. These are:
• Instructors acting as facilitators
• Use of a variety of presentation styles
• Multiple exercises
• Hands-on problems
• Learner control of pacing
• Frequent testing
• Clear feedback
• Consistent layout
• Clear navigation
• Available help screens" (Swan, 2003, p. 5).

"Chickering and Gamson’s 'Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,' updated for online learning, are based on research and practice in traditional undergraduate education. These include:
• Contacts between students and faculty
• Reciprocity and cooperation among students
• Active learning techniques
• Prompt feedback
• An emphasis on time on task
• Communication of high expectations
• Respect for diverse talents and ways of learning" (Swan, 2003, p. 6).

Keeton, Scheckley and Griggs have adapted and revised the seven principles according to
a survey of twenty years of teaching practices, basing their eight principles on the practices they find to have had the greatest impact on learning gains in higher education:
• Make learning goals and one or more paths to them clear
• Use deliberate practice and provide prompt constructive feedback
• Provide an optimal balance of challenge and support that is tailored to the individual students’ readiness and potential
• Broaden the learners’ experience of the subject matter
• Elicit active and critical reflection by learners on their growing experience base
• Link inquiries to genuine problems or issues of high interest to the learners to enhance motivation and accelerate their learning
• Develop learners’ effectiveness as learners early in their education
• Create an institutional environment that supports and encourages inquiry" (Swan, 2003, p. 6).

"These sets of organizing concepts seem to have in common, then, is that they suggest online developers and instructors provide:
• Clear goals and expectations for learners,
• Multiple representations of course content,
• Frequent opportunities for active learning,
• Frequent and constructive feedback,
• Flexibility and choice in satisfying course objectives, and
• Instructor guidance and support" (Swan, 2003, p. 6).

"Carol Twigg [26] gathered together a group of innovative online faculty and administrators in a Pew sponsored symposium to discuss paradigm changes in online learning, their overall conclusion was that individualization was the key to innovation in distance
education. Better quality learning, they agreed, would result from the greater personalization of learning experiences for all students. Symposium participants identified five key features of pacesetting programs that support personalization of learning:
• An initial assessment of each student's knowledge, skills, and preferred learning style
• An array of high-quality, interactive learning materials and activities
• Individualized study plans
• Built-in, continuous assessment to provide instantaneous feedback
• Appropriate, varied kinds of human interaction when needed" (Swan, 2003, p. 7).

       Interaction with instructors quotations:

"Research on learning through interactions with instructors, however, has yet to clearly document relationships between online teaching behaviors and student learning. Research to date is preliminary but intriguing. It has mostly been correlational and based on interview and survey data and faculty and student perceptions, but these do hint at important relationships between instructor activity and student learning. Initial investigations of instructor roles in online environments also seem quite promising.
Nonetheless, much work still needs to be done in this area" (Swan, 2003, p. 10).

"Several researchers have attempted to categorize the roles online instructors perform to reflect the ways in which they project their presence. Berge, for example, maintains that moderators of online discussions must fulfill four major functions -- managerial, social, pedagogical and technical. Paulson reduces these to three sets of functions -- organizational, social, and intellectual. Rossman provides empirical support for similar categories through the analysis of over three thousand student course evaluations. He found that student comments and complaints concerning their online instructors clustered into three major categories -- teacher responsibility, facilitating discussions, and course requirements (Swan, 2003, p. 12).

      Interaction with classmates quotations:

"Socio-cognitive theories of learning maintain that all learning is social in nature and that knowledge is constructed through social interactions. Online education seems particularly well constructed to support such social learning because of the unique nature of asynchronous course discussions. To begin with, all students have a voice and no student can dominate the conversation. The asynchronous nature of the discussion makes it impossible for even an instructor to control. Whereas discussion in traditional classrooms is, for the most part, transacted through and mediated by the instructor, online discussion evolves among participants. Accordingly, many researchers have found that students perceive online discussion as more equitable and more democratic than traditional classroom discourse. In addition, because it is asynchronous, online discussion affords participants the opportunity to reflect on their classmates’ contributions while creating their own, and on their own writing before posting it. This tends to create a certain mindfulness and a culture of reflection in online courses. However, as Eastmond reminds us, computer-mediated communication is not inherently interactive, but depends on the frequency, timeliness, and nature of the messages posted. Ruberg, Moore and Taylor found that computer-mediated communication encouraged experimentation, sharing of ideas,
increased and more distributed participation, and collaborative thinking, but also found that for online discussion to be successful, it required a social environment that encouraged peer interaction facilitated by instructor structuring and support" (Swan, 2003, p. 13).

"Some communication researchers argue that differing media have differing capacities to transmit the non-verbal and vocal cues that produce feelings of immediacy in face-to-face communication. Short, Williams & Christie refer to these capacities as “social presence,” or the “quality of a medium to project the salience of others in interpersonal communication.” They contend that low bandwidth media, such as text-based computer-mediated communication, have less social presence, and by extension promote less learning, than media with greater communication potential. Media richness theory reaches a similar conclusion, as does Picard's more recent notion of "affective channel capacity". Researchers experienced with online teaching and learning, however, contest this view. Participants in computer-media communications, they argue, create social presence by projecting their identities into their communications. Walther, for example, argued that participants in strictly text-based electronic conferences adapt their language to make missing non-verbal and vocal cues explicit and so develop relationships that are marked by affective exchanges. What is important, these researchers contend, is not media capabilities, but rather personal perceptions of presence" (Swan, 2003, pp. 14-15).

"The concept of social presence leads to that of virtual learning communities. Virtual learning communities have been variously defined by differing authors, and variations
on the term, such as 'virtual classrooms',  'computer-supported knowledge-building communities', or "communities of inquiry' confuse the issue even further. Most conceptualizations, however, seem to center on one of two foci relating to research on learning communities in general. Some researchers focus on learning, more specifically, they focus on Scardemalia and Bereiter's notion of learning as collaborative knowledge building. ... Other researchers base their work on Lave and Wenger's groundbreaking
research on learning communities and on the social relationships that support them" (Swan, 2003, p. 17).

"What does the research tell us about learning effectiveness in asynchronous online environments? On the one hand, it tells us that online environments support learning outcomes that are generally equivalent to those resulting from traditional, face-to-face instruction. On the other hand, the research suggests that unique characteristics of the medium may afford and constrain particular kinds of learning. Such affordances and constraints, in turn, suggest certain strategies and approaches that might enhance the learning effectiveness of online instruction. These are summarized in Tables 1 through 3
which connect what we know, or think we know, about learning in asynchronous online environments with suggestions for practice that might either capitalize on unique their affordances or ameliorate their unique constraints (Swan, 2003, pp. 22-23).

Thacker, C., & Dayton, D. (2008). Using Web 2.0 to Conduct Qualitative Research. Technical Communication, 55(4), 383-391.

Category: Research Methods

Summary:

Thacker and Dayton presented their ideas about how to use Web 2.0 tools to gather data, conduct research, and further technical communication studies. They discuss a recommended design for a Firsthand Report website (FHR). Their article contains an effective table (not available below) worth reading that explores the differences between interview-based qualitative research and a firsthand report website.

Citation-worthy:

"To improve qualitative data gathering using Internet-mediated communication, researchers would benefit greatly if they had a Web site that enabled them to: [1] Impose some unifornity of structure on and embed metadata in the textual information as it is collected; [2] Facilitate timely interaction to clarify and elaborate the texts first presented by informants; [3] Provde data exploration tools built into the primary data collection platform; [4] Enable teams of researchers to work closely together to collect and analyze information presented over time by many informants. The technology to build such Web sites already exists, and it is being implemented widely" (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, p. 384).

"The FHR Web site has three primary functions: (1) to collect information from numerous people on a relatively narrow topic; (2) to enable easy search and retrieval of the knowledgebase thus created; and (3) to build the social cohesion and communication that characterize healthy virtual communities" (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, p. 386).

"Users of the FHR Web site will interact with fellow community members and the information on the sit through a relatively small set of key functions.

• Profile: A personal profile space that features all of the user’s relevant demographic and psychographic information. The profile is also the main gateway for users to interface with an informant’s first-hand reports, blogs, and discussion.  Firsthand Report: Structured narrative accounts generated from a uniform sequence of prompts created by the research team.
• Search: A search engine that queries the site’s database to find relevant information from the inputsand preferences of the user.
• Forum: The site’s threaded message board that is accessible to the public. The message board is designed for members of the community to discuss topics in an open forum, interacting with guests—visitors to the site who have not joined the site or have not been approved for membership in the site by the principal investigator (PI) and/or the research team.
• Help: A wiki that addresses common issues pertaining to the site. The wiki will be initiated and maintained by the research team, but any member will have the ability to comment on any page, and some members who volunteer for the role will be able to edit pages" (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, p. 386).

 "The views of Blakeslee and colleagues (1999) are consistent with the quality criterion of authenticity, although they do not use that term. They keep their discussion within the
literature of technical communication in arguing for a similarly participative ideal in evaluating the validity of qualitative research. Contrasting their stance to the views of several other scholars in technical communication and in composition studies, they state '[W]e need to view validity as being more than a matter of determining whether, in fact, we are measuring what we think or say we are measuring, which is how many
scholars continue to define validity' (128). Paraphrasing the views of Kirsch (1992, 257), Blakeslee and colleagues (1999) agreed that researchers doing qualitative studies in technical communication 'should open up our research agendas to our participants, listen to their stories, and allow them to actively participate, as much as possible, in the design, development, and reporting of our research' (132). They acknowledge the difficulties of implementing that vision of participatory research (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, pp. 387-388).

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Categories: Theory & Rhetoric, Communication Design

Summary:

Wenger's book presents a theory of learning he and Jean Lave created from their observations and research working with different businesses and not-for-profit companies. The theory is that all learning occurs in social situations, and therefore the social practices and experiences that accompany learning are a fundamental aspect of what we learn, our perspectives, and ultimately who we are. He provides a compelling argument that we need to look at learning as a lifelong, continual process of meaning-making forged by experiences and shaped through interactions. He calls for: (1) individuals to actively engage in the learning process, (2) communities to assess and refine their educational practices to determine what is being taught from the social interaction, and not just the text, and (3) organizations to consciously sustain the interconnected communities that maintain their knowledge and practices.

The first chapter explores meaning. The author argues that all meaning is negotiated through a process of participation and reification ("the process of giving form to our experience by producing objects that congeal this experience" p. 58). The second chapter defines community's three dimensions of mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. In the third chapter, Wenger explained that learning occurs through participation and reification in communities.

The fourth chapter discusses boundary encounters; events like meetings and conversations where meaning is negotiated. Three types of boundary encounters are one-on-one, immersion, and delegations. Within a community of practice, these specific boundaries are less rigid, and there are overlaps, amalgamations (called boundary practices) and peripheries (influence by other sources).

In chapter five, the authors differentiated between local and global (constellations) communities, believing distance did not prevent such relationships, but could hinder them. How the communities composed identity, involved participants, and found belonging were the subjects of chapters six through eight, while nine returned to the concepts of identification and negotiability. These ideas are explained clearly through the citations below.




Citation-worthy:

"Our institutions... are largely based on the assumption that learning is an individual process, that it has a beginning and an end, and it is best separated from the rest of our activities, and that it is the result of teaching. ... As a result, much of our institutionalized teaching and training is perceived by would-be learners as irrelevant, and most of us come out of this treatment feeling that learning is boring and arduous, and that we are not really cut out for it" (Wenger, 1998, p. 3).

"My assumptions as to what matters about learning and as to the nature of knowledge, knowing, and knowers can be succinctly summarized as follows. I start with four premises. 1) We are social beings. Far from being trivially true, this fact is a central aspect of learning. 2) Knowledge is a matter of competence with respect to valued enterprises - such as singing in tune, discovering scientific facts, fixing machines, writing poetry, being convivial, growing up as a boy or a girl, and so forth. 3) Knowing is a matter of participating in the pursuit of such enterprises, that is, of active engagement in the world. 4) Meaning - our ability to experience the world and our engagement with it is as meaningful - is ultimately what learning is to produce...
"A social theory of learning must therefore integrate the components necessary to characterize social participation as a process of learning and of knowing. These components ... include the following. 1) Meaning: a way of talking about our (changing) ability - individually and collectively - to experience our life and the world as meaningful. 2) Practice: a way of talking about the shared historical and social resources, frameworks, and perspectives that can sustain mutual engagement in action. 3) Community: a way of talking about the social configurations in which our enterprises are defined as worth pursuing and our participation is recognizable as competence. 4) Identity: a way of talking about how learning changes who we are and creates personal histories of becoming in the context of our communities" (Wenger, 1998, pp. 4-5).

"If we believe that productive people in organizations are the diligent implementers of organizational processes and that the key to organizational performance is therefore the definition of increasingly more efficient and detailed processes ... then it makes sense to engineer and re-engineer these processes. ... But if we believe that people in organizations contribute to organization goals by participating inventively in practices that can never be fully captured by institutionalized processes, then we will minimize prescription, suspecting that too much of it discourages the very inventiveness that makes practices effective. ... Our institutions are designs and ... our designs are hostage to our understanding, perspectives, and theories" (Wenger, 1998, p. 10). 

"The communal regime of mutual accountability plays a central role in defining the circumstances under which, as a community and as individuals, members feel concerned or unconcerned by what they are doing and what is happening to them and around them, and under which they attempt, neglect, or refuse to make sense of events and to seek new meanings" (Wenger, 1998, p. 81).

"Calling every imaginable social configuration a community of practice would render the concept meaningless. On the other hand, encumbering the concept with too restrictive a definition would only make it less useful" (Wenger, 1998, p. 122).

"Because a community of practice need not be reified as such in the discourse of it participants, indicators that a community of practice has formed would include: 1) sustained mutual relationships - harmonious or conflictual; 2) shared ways of engaging in doing things together; 3) the rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation; 4) absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations and interactions were merely the continuation of an ongoing process; 5) very quick setup of a problem to be discussed; 6) substantial overlap in participants' descriptions of who belongs; 7) knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise; 8) mutually defining identities; 9) the ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products; 10) specific tools, representations, and other artifacts; 11) local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter; 12) jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of producing new ones.

"Focusing on identity brings to the fore the issue of non-participation as well as participation, and of exclusion as well as inclusion" (Wenger, 1998, 145).

"An identity ... is a layering of events of participation and reification by which our experience and its social interpretation inform each other" (Wenger, 1998, 151).

"Our identities are rich and complex because they are produced within the rich and complex set of relations of practice. ... [Identity in practice is] lived ... negotiated ... social ... a learning process... a local-global interplay" (Wenger, 1998, pp. 162-163).

"The mix of participation and non-participation through which we define our identities reflects our power as individuals and communities to define and affect our relations to the rest of the world. It shapes such fundamental aspects of our lives as: 1) how we locate ourselves in a social landscape; 2) what we care about and what we neglect; 3) what we attempt to know and understand and what we choose to ignore; 4) with whom we seek connections and whom we avoid; 5) how we engage and direct our energies; 6) how we attempt to steer our trajectories" (Wenger, 1998, pp. 168-169).

"Engagement [is] a threefold process, which includes the conjunction of: 1) the ongoing negotiation of meaning; 2) the formation of trajectories; 3) the unfolding of histories of practice" (Wenger, 1998, p. 174).

"Identification is not merely a relation between people, but between participants and other constituents" (Wenger, 1998, p. 192).

"The relevance of a social perspective is not limited to special situations of learning ... This does not mean that all learning is best done in groups and some learning is best done by oneself. At the issue is what defines learning as learning? ... The difference between mere doing and learning, or between mere entertainment and learning, is not a difference in kind of activity. It is not that one is mindless and the other thoughtful, that one is hard and the other easy, or that one is fun and the other arduous. It is that learning–whatever form it takes–changes who we are by changing our ability to participate, to belong to negotiate meaning. And this ability is configured socially with respect to practices, communities, and economies of meaning where it shapes our identities" (Wenger, 1998, p. 226).

"This social perspective on learning may be summarized succinctly by the following principles. [1] Learning is inherent in human nature. ... [2] Learning is first and foremost the ability to negotiate new meanings. ... [3] Learning creates emergent structure. ... [4] Learning is fundamentally experiential and fundamentally social. ... [5] Learning transforms our identities. ... [6] Learning constitutes trajectories of participation. ... [7] Learning means dealing with boundaries. ... [8] Learning is a matter of social energy and power. ... [9] Learning is a matter of engagement. ... [10] Learning is a matter of imagination. ... [11] Learning is a matter of alignment. ... [12] Learning involves interplay between the local and the global" (Wenger, 1998, pp. 226-228).

"Communities of practice already exist through out our societies – inside and across organizations, schools, and families – in both realized and unrealized forms. 1) potential.… 2) active.… 3) latent" (Wenger, 1998, p. 228).

"Communities of practice are about content – about learning as a living experience of negotiating meaning – not about form. In this sense, they cannot be legislated into existence or defined by decree. They can be recognized, supported, encouraged, and nurtured, but they are not reified, designable units" (Wenger, 1998, p. 229).

"Learning cannot be designed: it can only be designed for – that is, facilitated or frustrated" (Wenger, 1998, p. 229).

"When it concerns practice and identity, design inevitably confront fundamental issues of meaning, time, space, and power" (Wenger, 1998, p. 231).

"Participation and reification are two complementary aspects of design that create two kinds of affordance for negotiating meaning.
– One can make sure that some artifacts are in place – tools, plans, procedures, schedules, curriculums – so that the future will have to be organized around them.
– One can also make sure that the right people are at the right place in the right kind of relation to make something happen" (Wenger, 1998, pp. 231-232).

"There is an inherent uncertainty between design and its realization in practice, since practice is not the result of design but rather a response to it. As a consequence, the challenge of design is not a matter of getting rid of the emergent, but rather of including it and making it an opportunity" (Wenger, 1998, p. 233).

"Communities of practice differ from institutional entities along three dimensions.
– They negotiate their own enterprise, though they may at times construct a conforming response to institutional prescriptions.
– They arise, evolve, and dissolve according to their own learning, though they may do so in response to institutional event.
– They shape their own boundaries, though their boundaries may at times happen to be congruent with institutional boundaries" (Wenger, 1998, p. 241).

"This approach suggests the following set of general guidelines.
– Construe learning as a process of participation, whether for newcomers or old-timers.
– Place the emphasis on learning, rather than teaching, by finding leverage points to build on learning opportunities offered by practice.
– Engage communities in the design of their practice as a place of learning.
– Give communities access to the resources they need to negotiate their connections with other practices and their relation with the organization" (Wenger, 1998, p. 249).
"Education, in its deepest sense and at whatever age it takes place, concerns the opening of identities – exploring new ways of being that lie beyond our current state. Whereas training aims to create an inbound trajectory targeted at competence in a specific practice, education must strive to open new dimensions for the negotiation of the self. It places students in an outbound trajectory toward a broad field of possible identities. Education is not merely formative – it is transformative" (Wenger, 1998, p. 263).

Spinuzzi, C. (2008). Network: Theorizing knowledge work in telecommunications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Category: Theory & Rhetoric, Communication Design, Technology.

Summary:

One of the touchstone works among researchers, Spinuzzi's Network looks at activity theory, actor-network theory, and knowledge work, and asks the question, "Can't we all just get along?" His work merges--somewhat--the theories into net work with a backdrop of a somewhat dysfunctional, functioning telecommunications company. "This book ... is all about how genres circulate through and help build networks of activity in knowledge work and how we can trace those genres to better understand their networks" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 4). His book does not settle the arguments and differences between the theories, but introduces a dialogue of what each theory can, and cannot explain or address. 

Citation-worthy:

"I think much of this confusion has to do with slippage in the term network. In actor-network theory, actor-networks are assemblages of humans and nonhumans; any person, artifact, practice, or assemblage of these is considered a node in the network and indeed can be an actor-network in itself. Links are made across and among these nodes in fairly unpredictable ways.… One can see why actor-network theory is considered political and rhetorical: it is in effect a politics and a rhetoric of symmetry, one in which no Cartesian lines are drawn between humans and nonhumans (see Latour, 1999B)" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 7).

"The links in the nodes of an activity network are often portrayed as supply lines: Activity A labors to produce an artifact that serves as a tool for Activity B; Activity C labors to develop practices that then serve as rules for Activity B; and so on. Activities do indeed interpenetrate or overlap (Russell, 1997A; Spinuzzi, 2003B), but they can still be pulled out and examined separately. And –most importantly – activity systems and networks in which they operate develop and change. Activity theory incubated in the field of educational psychology; its central concern is not politics or rhetoric or alliances, but cultural-historical development of individuals and groups" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 7).

"Networks are relatively stable assemblages of humans and nonhumans that collectively form standing sets of transformations: the network represents and re-represents phenomena in various areas. These phenomena include information such as orders but also people such as customers and co-workers. As we'll see below, these necessary rerepresentations introduce plenty of distance" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 12).

"But though networks claim large areas, in practice they are vanishingly small; their claim to power is that a transform the world so that things outside the network don't matter (Bowker, 1987; Latour, 1993B, pp.117-118)" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 15).

"Activity theory provides a cultural-historical, developmental view of networks grounded in the orientation of particular activities toward particular objects. It foregrounds the development of competence and expertise as workers labor to make Telecorp a success. (Of course success means different things in different parts of the network… Actor-network theory provides a political and rhetorical view of networks and foregrounds the continual recruiting of new allies-both human and nonhuman-to strengthen the… network. The two frameworks are very different, even contradictory, and can lead to very different conclusions" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 16).

"Genres – which can be glossed as typified rhetorical responses to recurrent social situations (Miller, 1984) – do much of the enacting that holds a network together. They do this work not by virtue of being simply text types or forms but because they are tools-in-use. That is, in this analysis, I stress genre as a behavioral descriptor rather than as a formal one (cf. Spinuzzi, 2003b; Volishinov, 1973). Genres typically function in assemblages, as I've discussed elsewhere (Spinuzzi, 2004), their compound mediation enables complex activities such as the ones we've seen in this chapter. As we saw in the first two disruptions, workers mobilized various genres to enroll allies for change as well as to support their routine, stable work. As relatively stable ways of producing and interpreting texts, genres impart some measure of stability (cf. Schryer, 1993) to the networks in which they circulate. But at the same time, genres develop, hybridize, interconnect, intermediate, and proliferate to support developments in those networks, providing the flexibility that networks need if they are to extend further and enroll other allies or activities (Spinuzzi, 2003B)" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 17).

"Directionless indeed. While activity theorists use genre to trace and explore historical development, using mediation as a way to conceptualize the impetus for such changes, actor-network theorists have avoided developmental examinations of artifacts in favor of examinations that emphasize relentless and infinitely interconnected intermediations. "In AT [activity theory], the subject-object relation is a historical phenomenon that came into existence as a result of the biological and cultural evolution," Reijo Miettinen points out. "ANT [actor-network theory] postulates a general theory of association of forces, regardless of what they are: (1999, p. 178). Despite the historical examinations of developing technologies common in actor-network studies (Akrich, 1992; Callon, 1986a; Law, 1986b, 2002a; Law & Callon, 1992), the emphasis inexorably turns to rhizomatic actor-networks in which all actants are connected to each other and intermediate each other more or less equally. As the root word indicates, genres imply genealogies, but the rhizome is an antigenealogy (Deleuse & Guattari, 1987, p. 11). No wonder actor-network theory has a problem accounting for the stability of networks" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 22)!

"We can think of at least two ways to build sociotechnical networks: weaving and splicing… Whereas woven networks grow through development, spliced networks grow through opportunistic alliances, through unpredictable jumps and sideways connections. They do have a history, a history of translations, but that history is one of contacts and negotiations and compromise" (Spinuzzi, 2008, pp. 33, 35).

"We can see networked activities as cultural-developmental (as activity theory does) and as political-rhetorical (as actor-network theory does)" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 36).

"Activity networks assume asymmetry, casting nonhumans as mediators or objects of labor rather than as actants. They emphasize development, foregrounding human ingenuity, learning, and individual and social changes. And they exhibit structure in the composition of the activity networks and the activity systems that compose them" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 43).

"Sociotechnical networks can be seen as material assemblages that enact standing sets of transformations. These networks are heterogeneous, multiply linked, transformative, and blackbox.… Heterogenous—Sociotechnical networks are assemblages of humans and nonhumans: material assemblages that are constantly being enacted, that is, that interrelate in relatively stable ways.… Multiply linked—We have to talk about nets as well as knots; agency, competence, expertise, and cognition are distributed across the entire network.… This splicing work, Callon says, always involves negotiating and re-articulating – that is, transforming – text.… Transformative… Transformations happen as movements to different physical and social locales – different media, different activities, different groups with different social languages. And that brings us to the nodes of the network, the local areas in which the message was really articulated. These nodes are local activities in the sense used by activity theorists, but as Engeström et al. (1999) point out, these are often ad hoc activities, often deeply interpenetrated in each other. These activities are standing sets of transformations, but their complex interpenetrations mean that their transformations can be idiosyncratic and unpredictable. Each node has its own logic, its own connections, it's own text, and it's own skills of space and time.… Black-boxed… Black boxes tend to hide not just complexities but also local transformations. Send a signal into a black box and the output will be a transformation – you may not know how it was transformed, but you'll be able to predict the results of the transformation" (Spinuzzi, 2008, pp. 46-50).

"Activity theory, in its "third generation," is attempting to move from the study of individuals and focused activities to the study of interrelated sets of activities, and thus into work organization, and it's also beginning to investigate issues of power and mastery… Simultaneously, actor-network theory is expanding from studies of scientific knowledge into popular science and technology and from there into work organization as well" (Spinuzzi, 2008, pp. 62-63).

"Where an activity theorist would look for a germ-cell or abstract principle from which the many instances of the pump develops,… In an actor-network, the first stroke is a splice" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 66).

"So let's's talk about the development of activity theory itself. Yrjö Engeström (1996a) outlines three "generations" of activity theory in which its tenets were established. In the first generation, Lev Vygotsky and his collaborators built directly on Engles's ideas to develop the concept of mediated human activity in the individual, laying the foundations activity theory. In the second generation, A. N. Leont'ev applied the concept of mediation to larger social groups, yielding the unit of the activity system; this innovation is widely considered to be the beginning of activity theory. And in the third and current generation, Engeström and his collaborators drew on the words of Evald Ilyenkov (1977, 1982) to apply contradictions to activity systems and to conceptualize activity networks. Also in this third generation, activity theory began to come to grips with two aspects of splicing: polycontextuality and boundary crossing" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 69).

"In [an actor-network] view, power is not a possession of a prince, it is a consequence of the system: orders are followed not because the person who issued them is powerful but because they are transformed into actions that serve the interests of those who execute them. "If it were not the case, then the order would not have been 'obeyed' in the first place, and the person who gave the order would be said to be powerless!"(Latour, 1986, p. 268). Such an understanding of power contradicts the popular conception of Machiavelli as a schemer bent on consolidating dictatorial power" (Spinuzzi, 2008, pp. 82-83).

"Actor-networks are mediated but in a very different way from activity networks. In activity networks, mediation comes between humans and their objects or communities. It is represented by the lonely corners of the activity system's triangle. But in actor-network theory, mediation involves coming between two actants – whether human or nonhuman – and creating a relationship between them. Every actant is also a mediator.… If everything mediates everything else, agency must be seen as distributed (Law, 1992, p. 383). This insight allows actor-network theory, like activity theory, to escape the subject-object dichotomy that leads us to ask questions such as: do guns kill people or do people kill people… But whereas activity theory escapes this dichotomy by viewing the subject-mediator relationship as a dialectic that changes pre-existing entities, actor-network theory handles the problem by seeing subjects and mediators as network effects: subjects and objects, actants and mediators emerge from the assemblage rather than pre-existing it. "The agent – the 'actor' of the 'actor-network' – is an agent, a center, a planner, a designer, only to the extent that matters are also decentered, unplanned, in designed" (Law, 2002B, p. 136). Which is another way of saying: the first stroke is a splice" (Spinuzzi, 2008, pp. 86-87).

"Actor-network theory is a complex, sometimes loosely drawn approach to understanding scientific and technical knowledge. Based on relational sociology, it emphasizes the sorts of things that its Machiavellian roots emphasize: alliances, relationships, reversals, and betrayals. But unlike Machiavelli, it applies these principles to nonhumans as much as humans, and in doing so it expands from a political theory to an ontology. In this account, every actant defines and mediates others, and thus every actant is a potential agent; it is a symmetrical account. Actor-network theory provides a sophisticated set of theoretical and methodological tools in service of this account, although those tools are not as coherently assembled as activity theory's" (Spinuzzi, 2008, pp. 92-93).

"Actor-network theory seems quite deficient if you assume it to be a theory of learning; activity theory seems deficient in turn if you assume that it should function as an ontology" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 93).

"These genuine differences have a real implications for understanding how the two approaches can interact. For instance, since activity theory addresses developmental issues and issues of competence and cognition, it is in a much stronger position to explain how workers learn and how they develop resources. At the same time, after-network theory's splicing account is stronger, leading us to examine how relationships among actants define those actants themselves and how changes in relationships lead to change in those actants" (Spinuzzi, 2008, pp. 93-94).

"Activity theory sees history as developmental and linear and examines it through examining the contradictions that form in activities. After-network theory sees history as settlements that accrete and sediment and examines it through translations. Each provides insights for us that are potentially valuable" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 96).

"Text belong to genres.…"genres are constellations of regulated improvisational strategies triggered by the interaction between individual socialization, or habitus, and an organization or field" (2007, p. 31; cf. Russell, 1997a; Spinuzzi, 2003b)" (Spinuzzi, 2008, pp. 146-147).

"Actor-network theory is simply not a theory of learning.… Activity theory, on the other hand, takes development – weaving – as its work. It has an extensively theorized and researched account of education and development based on dialectics. This is where dialectics really shines, of course: in examining how people formulate and develop concepts, how they assimilate and incorporate new knowledge" (Spinuzzi, 2008, pp. 186-187).

"Despite some influx of the dialogic theory, activity theory still understands learning as dialectical" (Spinuzzi, 2008, p. 190).

deWinter, J., Griffin, D., McAllister, K. S., Moeller, R. M., & Ruggill, J. E. (2010). Computer games across the curriculum: A critical review of an emerging techno-pedagogy. Currents in Electronic Literacy.

Categories: Technology, Communication Design, Theory & Rhetoric 

Summary:

Why do instructors face so much resistance to using computer games in education? The authors begin by exploring the funding for studying, developing, and teaching using games. They then discuss the accessability, familiarity with games, and other user challenges that decrease the enjoyment of learning games. They suggested that those who state excuses for using games in education perform rigorous research or produce a scholarly argumentative paper supporting their position. They then look at what to teach with video games and how to assess it. Their answer boils down to a solid, "it depends," but they do provide questions to help an instructor make such decisions. They move on to discussing the ethics of forcing gaming on students and the messages each game inherently sends by its rhetoric and situation. After all of the warnings, the article suggests that games can be used in classrooms effectively, when done properly. 

Citation-worthy:
"There is good reason to recall both techno-enthusiasm of the past and Hawisher and Selfe’s warning: not only are computer games ideologically-laden virtual environments over which instructors have little control, but even the most basic games require expensive pieces of machinery to run and the medium is often perceived by students and faculty alike as a toy or distraction. Games also depend upon fun, which is notoriously difficult to define, let alone assess. Instructors wanting to use games in the classroom thus potentially face a fair bit of resistance from students, faculty, and administrators" (deWinter, Griffin, McAllister, Moeller, & Ruggill, 2010, p. 1).

"Theoretically speaking, play and games are often positioned as the opposite of work. They are seen as frivolous, unproductive, and apart from the "real" world" (deWinter, Griffin, McAllister, Moeller, & Ruggill, 2010, p. 2).

It is at the point of access where the rubber meets the road in computer game-based pedagogies. There simply is no possibility of such pedagogies if students, teachers, and institutions cannot easily and indeed pleasurably play. After all, play is the catalyzing component that enables games of all kinds to teach deeply and directly. Without play, games are just work, and thus no different from math problems, spelling lists, or any of the other mundane heuristics teachers as well as students have long grown tired of (deWinter, Griffin, McAllister, Moeller, & Ruggill, 2010, p. 3).

"One possible reason students resist playing games in the classroom is that they perceive games and other forms of new media as fundamentally radical and are uncomfortable with their formal education partaking of this radicality. Consider, for example, the following explanations our students have offered for why the idea of incorporating computer gameplay into high school and college classes is illegitimate: 1) Games take too long to play; 2) Games are a waste of time 3) Games are too expensive; 4) Games can be reviewed, but what’s to study?; 5) Games depend on exploitative imagery; 6) Games tell stories badly; 7) Games are all the same; 8) Games are historically inaccurate and can’t be trusted; 9) Games lead to addiction; 10) Games? I don’t play computer games; 11) Games? What could you possibly teach me about games?
"On the surface, it seems that students present these barricades to new learning not because they are enacting an introspectively-motivated political stance but because they are restating the arguments made countless times on television, in magazines and newspapers, or by their guardians and teachers" (deWinter, Griffin, McAllister, Moeller, & Ruggill, 2010, pp. 3-4).

"The process of using computer games is not necessarily a smooth one. This is partly because computer-game studies is expansive and ranges from pedagogies based on games as analyzable texts to those based on games as various kinds of products. Computer games are also part of a dynamic entertainment industry that requires constant and expensive technological upgrades to keep up with a never-ending flow of new games. In order to provide students with up-to-date games to play and consider, instructors must both raise funds for "frivolous games" and spend countless hours playing them in a pre-screening process. These hours and monies can be, we believe, well spent. Computer games synergize multiple literacies into a format that students not only can but want to play with, experiment on, disassemble, and reinvent. Undertaken thoughtfully, computer game-based composition pedagogy can parlay students' playfulness into marked advances in their abilities to read, write, and critique both traditional and new media texts (deWinter, Griffin, McAllister, Moeller, & Ruggill, 2010, p. 17).

Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2014). Effective crisis communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Categories: Communication Design,  Theory & Rhetoric

Summary:

In a world of instant information, organizations or individuals seeking to preserve/present their image, social capital, or brand perception must know how to properly respond to crises. It is not a matter of "if" but "when" a crisis will occur. Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger provide a thorough balanced approach to crisis management by focusing on the potential each situation provides for those involve to renew, grow, and progress in the public eye. They train readers on techniques and approaches to resolve crises in a manner than may benefit the interests of the company in the long run. The authors main goal is to change readers' view of crises and adapt their responses.

The first section of the book focuses on how to respond to a crisis. The authors discuss subjects related to defining and framing a crisis, managing uncertainty, and leading out in the discussions publicly.The second section categorizes crises, and shows various responses based on the type of crisis. The third section focuses on how to decrease the likelyhood or damage of a future crisis or through organizational learning, risk communication, and ethical communication. The authors introduce their theory, "the Discourse of Renewal" in the final chapter, after providing a solid foundation for such through the text.

Though primarily focused on corporate crisis communication, the principles in the book could be applied to administrations struggling with a broken educational system, including frustrated instructors or students.


Citation-worthy:  

"Crises are most often described as destructive, threatening, and negative events without any redeeming value. Consequently, communication following a crisis is often defensive and negative. In this case, organizations deny responsibility for the crisis, look for scapegoats to attribute responsibility, minimize the extent or impact of the damage, take a rigid legalistic approach, or say nothing at all. These types of responses have resulted in a declining confidence in our public and private institutions. Current crisis communication theory has effectively categorized strategies organizations employ to preserve their images and reputations" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. XIII).

"We suggest that an organization experiencing a crisis also take the opportunity to learn from the event, communicate honestly and ethically, work to minimize harm for those most directly impacted by the crisis, and develop a prospective vision for the organization to move forward. This approach, which we describe as the Discourse of Renewal, suggests that organizations should enact strong, positive ethical core values and effective crisis communication principles to guide their crisis responses" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. XIII).

"Crises are not intrinsically negative forces in society… Crises can actually lead to positive outcomes. We see crises as opportunities for learning and improvement, viewing them as they are perceived in Chinese culture,where the symbol for crisis in the Mandarin language is interpreted as dangerous opportunity (see Figure 1.1)" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 3).

"In a classic study, Hermann (1963) identified three characteristics separating crises from other unpleasant occurrences:
1. Surprise
2. Threat
3. Short response time" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 5).

"We offer the following description as a working definition of organizational crisis:
And organizational crisis is a specific, unexpected, and nonroutine event or series of events that create high levels of uncertainty and simultaneously present an organization with both opportunities for and threats to its high-priority goals" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 7).

"Corporate apologia ... Research on corporate apologia was initially conceptualized as the speech of self-defense (Ware & Linkugel, 1973). Hearit (2001) defines an apologia as not exactly an apology but rather 'a response to criticism that seeks to present a compelling competing account of organizational accusations' (p. 502). In this case, crises are created by an accusation of wrongdoing. Hearit and Courtright (2004) explain that apologetic crises 'are the result of charges leveled by corporate actors (e.g., media or public interest groups) who contend that an organization is guilty of wrongdoing' (p. 210). Corporate apologia provides a list of communication strategies that the organization can use to respond to these accusations. These communication strategies include: 'denial, counterattack, differentiation, apology, and legal' (Hearit, 2006, p. 15). These strategies are primarily defensive and are designed principally for an organization to account for its actions after a crisis" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 16-17).

"Image repair theory... Benoit (1985) developed a comprehensive theory of image repair. Image refers to how the organization is perceived by its stakeholders and Publics. Similar to corporate apologia, Benoit (1997) explains that "the key to understanding image repair strategies is to consider the nature of attacks or complaints that prompt such responses" (p. 178). He suggests that two components of the acts are essential. First, the organization must be 'held responsible for an action' (Benoit, 1997, p. 178). Second, 'that [action must be] considered offensive' (Benoit, 1997, p. 178). Benoit's (1995) theory contains a list of 14 impression management strategies. Five major strategies include denial, a vision of responsibility, reducing the offensiveness of the event, corrective action, and mortification. Each strategy can be used individually or in combination (Sellnow & Ulmer, 1995; Sellnow, Ulmer, & Snider, 1998). Consistent with corporate apologia, Benoit's image repair strategies focus on how organizations respond to accusations or account for their actions after being accused of a transgression. An effective response is designed to repair the organization's damaged image or reputation.
Situational crisis communication theory" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 17).

"A third prominent theory on crisis communication is situational crisis communication theory. Coombs developed this theory by linking attribution theory and crisis response strategies (Coombs, 2007; Coombs & Halladay, 2002). His theory 'evaluates the reputational threats posed by the crisis situation and then recommends crisis response strategies based upon the reputational threat level' (P.138). The crisis response strategies in this approach or a synthesis of work on corporate, impression management, and image repair theory. He developed the list was selecting 'those [strategies] that appeared on two or more list developed by crisis experts' (P. 139). He describes for major communication approaches, including denial, diminishment, rebuilding, and the bolstering. In all, he delineates 10 crisis response strategies. The crisis communication strategies are then used according to the threat to the organization's reputation based upon 'crisis type, crisis history, and prior reputation' (Coombs, 2007, P. 141). Coombs (2007) explains the crisis type can be defined by three categories: 'victim crisis cluster, accidental crisis cluster, and presentable crisis cluster' (P. 142). The victim closer involves crisis such as natural disasters, rivers, workplace violence, and malevolence calm. Accidental crises involve challenges, technical error accidents, and technical error product harm. Preventable crises include human error, accidents, human error product harm, and organizational misdeeds. Beyond crisis type, crisis response strategies should also be selected according to the organization's crisis history and prior reputation" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, pp. 17-18).

"Crisis history and prior reputation are important because organizations that have recurring crises or four reputations are not likely to have their messages accepted by stakeholders. Coombs's theory is based upon the idea that, after a crisis, stakeholders "assign responsibility for negative unexpected events" (page 138). Depending upon the crisis type, crisis history, and prior reputation, Coombs provides crisis response recommendations to address the attributions of responsibility toward the organization" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 18).

Defining uncertainty: "Uncertainty is the inability to determine the presence or predict the future… Crisis-induced uncertainty is quite different from the type of uncertainty people and organizations experience on a daily basis…Taleb, (2010) explains that crises often create epistemological and ontological uncertainty. He defines epistemological uncertainty as the lack of knowledge we have following a crisis… Ontological uncertainty refers to the type of uncertainty in which the future has little or no relationship to the past" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 26).

"Lessons on uncertainty and crisis communication:
Lesson 1—Organization members must accept that a crisis can start quickly and unexpectedly....
Lesson 2—organizations should not respond to crises with routine solutions…
Lesson 3—threat is perceptual....
Lesson 4 — crisis communicators must communicate early and often following a crisis, regardless of whether they have critical information about the crisis.…
Lesson 5 – organizations should not purposely heighten the ambiguity of a crisis to deceive or distract the public.…
Lesson 6 – be prepared to defend your interpretation of the evidence surrounding a crisis.…
Lesson 7 — without good intentions prior to a crisis, recovery is difficult or impossible.…
Lesson 8—If you believe you are not responsible for a crisis, you need to build a case for who is responsible and why.…
Lesson 9 – organizations need to prepare for uncertainty through simulations and training.…
Lesson 10 – crises challenge the way organizations think about and conduct their business" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 39).

"Meyers & Holusha (1986) discuss seven potential positive results that can come from a crisis:
– Heroes are born.
– Change is accelerated.
– Latent problems are faced.
– People are changed.
– New strategies evolve.
– Early warning systems developed.
– New competitive advantages appear" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 60).

"Lessons on communicating effectively in crisis situations
Lesson 1: determine your goals for crisis communication.
Lesson 2: before a crisis, develop true equal partnerships with organizations and groups that are important to the organization.
Lesson 3: acknowledge your stakeholders, including the media, as partners with managing a crisis.
Lesson 4: organizations need to develop strong, positive primary and secondary stakeholder relationships.
Lesson 5: effective crisis communication involves listening to your stakeholders.
Lesson 6: communicate early about the crisis, acknowledge uncertainty, and a sure the publics that you will maintain contact with them about current and future risk.
Lesson 7: avoid certain or absolute answers to the public and the media until sufficient information is available.
Lesson 8: do not over reassure stakeholders about the impact the crisis will have on them.
Lesson 9: the public needs useful and practical statements of self-efficacy during a crisis.
Lesson 10: effective crisis communicators acknowledge that's positive factors can arise from organizational crises" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 61).

"Suggestions for the leader as a spokesperson:
– Don't let the media push you into saying things that you do not want to say, but don't become angry with the media.
– Express concern for anyone harmed by the crisis.
– Avoid the phrase "no comment."
– If you don't have the answer to a question, say so, but indicates that you are working to find the answer.
– Don't to speak with certainty unless you're absolutely sure of all the facts.
– Be sure to point out The uncertainty of situations with phrases such as, "the situation is evolving," or, "we don't have all the facts yet."
– Don't hesitate to involve others on the crisis team when you don't know the answer" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 74).

"Benoit's Image restoration strategies
– Denial
    A. Simple denial (see we did not do it.)
    Be. Shifting the blame (someone else did it.)
– Evasian of responsibility
    A. Provocation (we were provoked to act.)
    B. Defeasibility (we did not have enough information.)
    C. Accident (we did not mean for this to happen.)
    D. Good intentions (see we meant to do the right thing.)
– Reducing the offensiveness of the event
    A. Bolstering (see we have done some good things.)
    Be. Minimization (see the crisis is not that bad.)
    C. Differentiation (see others have had worse crises.) He
    D. Transcendence (see we should focus on other issues.)
    E. Attack the accuser (see the accuser is irresponsible.)
    F. Compensation (see we will cover the cost of the crisis.)
– Corrective action (see we will solve the problem.)
– Mortification (see we are sorry)" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 76).

"Coombs's crisis response strategies
– Nonexistence strategies
    A. Denial (see we did not to do it.)
    B. Clarification (see we did not do it, and this is why.)
    C. Attack (see those who accuse us are at fault.)
    D. Intimidation (see we will sue the accuser.)
– Distance strategies
    A. Excuse (we are not responsible.)
    B. Denial of intention (see we did not intend for this to happen.)
    C. Denial of volition (someone Else did this.)
    D. Just vacation (see this crisis is not as bad as others.)
        I. Minimizing injury (see no one was hurt by the crisis.)
        I I. Victim deserving (see the victim deserves the effects.)
        I I. Miss representation of the crisis event (see our crisis did not cause this impact.
– Ingratiation strategies
    A. Bolstering (let's examine our positive aspects.)
    B. Transcendence (see the real problem is much larger.)
    C. Praising others (see thank you for your advice.)
– Mortification strategies
    A. Remediation (see we will compensate victims.)
    B. Repentance (please accept our apology.)
    C. Rectification (this is how we will solve the problem.)
– Suffering (we are a victim of the crisis.)" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 77).

"Lessons on effective crisis leadership:
Lesson 1: effective leadership is critical to overcoming a crisis.
Lesson 2: new leaders should be visible during a crisis.
Listen 3: leaders should work to develop a positive company reputation during normal times to build a reservoir of goodwill.
Lesson 4: leaders should be open and honest following a crisis.
Lesson 5: leaders who manage crises successfully may create opportunities for renewal.
Lesson 6: leaders should cooperate with stakeholders during a crisis and should work to build consensus.
Lesson 7: poor leadership, including denials, cover-ups, or lack of response, can make a crisis much worse.
Lesson 8: leaders must adapt to their leadership styles and contingencies during crazies.
Lesson 9: a virtuous response to a crisis by the organization's leaders may be the most effective and generating support and renewal.
Lesson 10 Leaders have specific communication obligations for managing and learning from crises" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 78).

"Simply experiencing a negative event is not sufficient for learning" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 173).

"Bazerman and Watkins (2004) identify four ways in which organizations fail to learn from the failures that occur around them:
1. Scanning failures: failure to pay close attention to potential problems both inside and outside the organization; this failure could be due to arrogance, a lack of resources, or simple inattention
2. Integration failures: failure to understand how pieces of potentially complicated information fit together to provide lessons on how to avoid crises
3. Incentive failures: Fillier to provide sufficient rewards to people who reports problems and take actions to avoid possible crises
4.  Learning failures: failure to draw important lessons from crazies and preserve their memories in the organization" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 174).

"If organizations are willing to devote themselves to effective organizational learning, they may experience the following four opportunities
Opportunity 1: organizations should treat failure as an opportunity to recognize a potential crisis or to prevent a similar crisis in the future.
Opportunity 2: organizations can avoid crises by learning from other organizations' failures and crises.
Opportunity 3: organizational training in planning should emphasize the preservation of previous learning in order to make organizational memory a priority.
Opportunity 4 organizations must be willing to unlearn outdated or ineffective procedures if they are to learn better crisis management strategies" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 182).

"Distinguishing risks from crisis
– Risk communication is future oriented, because risk focuses on what may happen. In contrast, crisis, by its nature come is focused on a specific event that is occurring or has already occurred.
– Risk communication is designed to avert a crisis, while crisis communication six to explain the consequences for a regrettable event.
– Risk messages are designed to speculate about what might happen based on current knowledge. Crisis messages typically focus on a non-event and speculate about how and why the event happened.
– Risk messages are designed for long-term planning. Crisis messages focus on the short-term as they seek to address the immediate problem.…
– Risk messages tend to have a personal focus…
– Risk communication has the luxury of time. Full-blown media campaigns, such as appeals for using seatbelts, can be designed and implemented over an extended period of time. Crisis messages typically take the form of news conferences, press releases, speeches, and any other available that can get the information out as quickly as possible.
– Risk messages can be carefully crafted and controlled. Crisis messages must be developed spontaneously in reaction to the crisis" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, pp. 185-186).

"If we are to identify, learn from, and communicate responsibly about risk, we would be wise to keep the following opportunities in mind:
– Opportunity one: effective risk communication can disrupt a crisis and prevented from reaching its full magnitude.
– Opportunity to: a mindful look at outlook is essential to recognizing the risks.
– Opportunity three: risk communication must account for both hazard and outrage.
– Opportunity for: two is your social responsibility , All risk communication should be held to the standard of significance choice.
Most important, effective risk communication allows for interaction among all stakeholders in any risk situation. To maximize this interaction, risk communicators should be conscious of the various needs of diverse stakeholders" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 197).

"An ethical response to a crisis, can help bolster an organization's image and reputation and ultimately helped lead and organization toward renewal:
Opportunity 1: organizations are better able to generate a productive crisis response was if they are willing to except responsibility for any actions they may have taken to cause a crisis.
Opportunity 2: organizations that are open and honest before and during crises are better prepared to manage and recover from the events.
Opportunity 3: organizations that make humanism and care priorities before crisis are better prepared for an acting these values after they have occurred.
Opportunity 4: organizations are better prepared to avoid or manage crises if they have identified, discussed, and instituted for values" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, pp. 109-110).

"Misconceptions of crisis communication
– Crises do not build character; they expose it.
– Crises are not inherently negative events.
– Crises require facing forward, not backward,
– Listening to stakeholders is essential.
– Agility trumps rigidity.
– The best assert crisis plan fails without positive stick all the relationships.
– Over reassuring eventually becomes a credibility killer.
–Communicate even if you can only say youhave nothing new to communicate.
– Focus less on the image and more on solution and solutions.
– Never resort to spin" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 223).

"For effective response, organizations would do well to see if these were opportunities:
Opportunity 1: organizations that bracelet crisis communication on strong positive organizational values are more likely to experience renewal.
– Opportunity 2: organizations to make significant choice of prior see in their crisis communication are more likely to experience renewals.
– Opportunity 3: organizations of books on moving beyond Chris's rather than escape and Glenn are more likely to experience renewal.
– Opportunity 4: organization that distinguish themselves as models further industries are more likely to experience" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2011, p. 226).