Meetup Group: NetSquared London

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

Date: May 4, 2010

What: London Net Tuesday: Cluetrain Discussion

Who: Meetup Group: NetSquared London

Where: Leap Anywhere HQ, London

What happened:

Today was my first attempt at participant observation/networking in London’s technology industry. The goal of this particular group (which I found on Meetup.com), NetSquared London, is to promote the social use of technology and encourage collaboration in the process. The speaker for the month’s session was David Turner, who facilitated a discussion on the Cluetrain Manifesto. One of its main points being that “markets are conversations” in addition to 95 theses that describe, while related, a more economics than social based system. So, we all sat in a nice comfy group, with couches and drinks while listening to a presentation and interjecting where necessary.

The Cluetrain Manifesto was developed approximately 10 years ago and appears to fit well in that era of the Internet: where utopian visions of equality existed and technology still was out of reach for many people. This utopian vision and the manifesto itself, also appear to have presupposed that everyone was/is at the same starting point in terms of access for technology. To be completely honest, and maybe this is a mistake, but I am not going to take the time to decipher this program of sorts, as it falls into a world of marketing and “buzzwords” not directly related to my research. I have other buzzwords to worry about.

However, from the short time I spent with this group of people, it was interesting to see that the majority of tech professionals appear to work and think within the bounds of urban London, and addressed the night’s topic within those same lines. This may have been a result of the audience, their own work environment or the goals of their individual social media projects.
Following slightly (in that it would back up my thought that this group appeared to be thinking of technology in terms of use by people similar to themselves) was an interesting point that was brought up: the plurality of people’s roles in the tech world. For individuals can be at the same time large decision makers, users of technology and builders of the technology itself. It would have been interesting to hear more about the level of influence that everyone believed was embedded in such actors. What was touched upon however was the level of influence that corporations have in their marketing. A topic out of bounds for this meeting, but made me realize this group was more tech, marketing and entrepreneurial than I had expected. Correction: I am actually not sure what I expected. But I myself do not have the same entrepreneurial spirit, and began with an anthropology background, rather than web design. I suppose in one respect, for if you do not have a background in anthropology, and are not continually taught to question, there is a desire for a different structure and validity in one’s work. Anthropology does not teach people how to achieve a tangible result (i.e. Create a thing that will make money). The business world does.

Additionally spoken about in the meeting was the breakdown of hierarchies in the corporate world in order increase collaboration. I found that the conversation maybe was reaching for a re-examination of the roles that people hold, rather than speaking about it dissolution. If people are socialized into knowing how to perform in certain roles, they are also socialized into knowing how they “should” be treated and what knowledge or expertise they have a responsibility to hold.

I have seen this same view in my current interviews with web designers who have been taught to perform in certain ways to achieve a goal. Also in terms of my research I did not find much knowledge of, interest or support for user-centered design or ethnography, which is supposedly meant to flatten the above hierarchies.

Also brought up was the notion of authentic and inauthentic conversations. Relating back to my work in understanding client-web designer relationships, I wonder what designers and clients perceive to be an authentic conversation? If an authentic conversation relating to web designers is one where the value of items being exchanged is satisfactory to both sides, then does sincerity matter? Does it even matter what people are saying if they are getting what they want? In the end, do people want to have more personal interactions in business transactions or not?

What I thought about it:

Overall the discussion was interesting because it was the perspective of those not within anthropology, but uncomfortable for the same reason. Marketing terms or buzz words, in my own opinion mask important aspects of processes and turn biases into their own entities. Of course anthropology is not free from the same downfall, but the goal of academia is to understand new terminology with a requirement for definition, and the business world is not.

Things also may not have resonated as much as they could, because there was a lot of talk about the future of the Internet and social media, and I have been concentrating on what people are doing right now to help people integrate and interact online.

In future sessions, I need to directly ask members of the group what they think about certain aspects on my research. I expect it to be fruitful and not scare people off as they are interested in talking frankly about such terms, and appear to truly want to engage more within their field. Also, it is not a subversive topic that I need to tip-toe around, but relatively open and uncontroversial.

On a completely social level it was great to be able to meet a group of people with similar interests, have an intellectual discussion and join in for a friendly meal afterward.

Tags: authentic, designer views, expert model, marketing, participant observation, social media
Posted in Meetups | 20 Comments »