I have a gut feeling that there may be some tune out on the practitioner side because of the word "software."

When using "social software" (I tend to call it software 'cause it ain't social till there are people involved!) most practitioners have come to the point where we use whatever software we can or have to use (based on availability, situation, cost, etc) and that the real practice comes in how we deploy the software. Now part of that is design, but most of it is group processes with PEOPLE. The social part.

Our attention, I'd guess, is more on social practices rather than on "social software."

I believe that the structure and operation of a "Social Software Institute" should parallel, as much as possible, the same "memes" that have given rise to the concerns around Social Software. Open, public, light, with a community oriented mindset and taking advantage of the same tools, it could very well be a model for other new types of academic-practitioners-learners collaboration, which is probably one of the forms that education and research will take in the near future (at least formally, because that has always been the nature of true learning and research). In other words, I think that a discussion about an Institute should not only address the subjects related Social Software, but also the form, methods and tools, for new ways to relate academy and practitioners to the general public.

Is there some middle ground here where code buffs and practice nuts can unite?

I'm thinking of:

• social affordances
• gathering interface patterns
• user centered design
• designing support for community rituals
• defining requirements for collaborative writing

Chance to express a frustration?? It seems the only communication tool that is in wide use in the general population currently is yahoogroups email lists. Why?? What did they do right to create the trend?

People won't even go to forum software anymore, at least not in a sticky way, for the most part. There are successes, certainly, but it's pulling hair to get people to see the advantages of using anything other than maillists, particularly yahoogroups. Which, from an organizational standpoint... sucks!

Some of the things I've needed to do in groups is to categorize information (say for doing planning for a large event) and the people I work with won't go there. A few see the advantages, but most want the 'simplicity' of yahoogroups. So, I'm stuck picking through lineal bits of information in order to find that one particular bit I find I need to go back to. Like I said, frustrating.

Is there something going on that will successfully pull people away from yahoogroups or am I doomed to live in frustration for the forseeable future?

I agree with Nancy. The name seems too technical somehow.

Edited by author 07-01-2003 03:00 PM
I think there's a crying need for something like a Social Software institute. There are many different constituencies each with their own wants, needs and desires all of which need to be addressed in the design and implementation of Community Enabling Applications.

I have yet to see any single application or group of applications that fits MY list of requirements (and I've been on the inside of designing a couple).

Someone, and my suggestion is that that be the "Social Practitioner" for want of a better term, needs to be responsible for integrating the engineering, management, and user needs and lead the development of a solution that addresses them all.

The problem is that there's no certification for being a "Social Practitioner". We all know it's not rocket science, but it IS a craft and there are definitely right and wrong ways to go about building community on-line.

The great difficulty is that for those that have not been part of developing a community, an "if we build it, they will come" mentality prevails.

Frequently we become involved after a great deal of time and money has been spent deploying a failed effort and we're charged with making what's gone before work without regard to the difficulties or appropriateness of the solution in place.

In general, there's a low recognition among client management of what's needed to make a community successful. There's no good one size fits all engineering solution, and there's no organization to increase the respect for the practice of the art or credential the good practitioners from the clueless.