The IndieWeb as affinity network

I am apparently someone who is into categorization, and went aha! when I read about nurturing affinity spaces and affinity networks, recognizing the IndieWeb in them. Though defining what it is changes nothing about it, I was intrigued by this common distinction in affinity spaces:

Bommarito proposes a situated model of affinity spaces (p. 411), in which affinity spaces shift between a “passionate” state, clearly focused on a shared interest, and a “deliberative” state, when the shared interest becomes unclear and participants have to resolve challenges unrelated to their shared interest. In the “passionate” state, the primary mode of interaction is what Bommarito calls “negotiation,” in which participants exchange ideas directly related to the shared interest or the organization of the space in a way that does not supersed the established shared interest; in the “deliberative state,” it is “deliberation,” in which participants debate “the nature of the shared interest itself” (p. 412) and what the space will become…

Participants in affinity spaces must deal with two different types of challenges, which Bommarito identifies as “adaptive” or “technical” drawing on Heifetz (1994). “According to Heifetz (1994, p. 72), technical problems are those for which ‘the necessary knowledge about them already has been digested and put in the form of a legitimized set of known organizational procedures guiding what to do and role authorizations guiding who should do it’.” (p. 413) This is the kind of problem participants tend to face when an affinity space is in a passionate state, when “participation means, primarily, gaining technical knowledge and skills related to the shared interest” (p. 413) and the problems to be solved are clearly related to the space’s shared endeavor. “Adaptive challenges, on the other hand, are situations in which ‘no adequate response has yet been developed’, ‘no clear expertise can be found’ and ‘no single sage has general credibility’ (Heifetz, 1994, p. 72)” and are the kinds of challenges participants face when the space is in a deliberative state, in which participants are “identifying problems unrelated to some common endeavor while also pursuing and evaluating possible solutions as a collective.”

This seems to reflect some of the challenges in a technology space that is not solidified in many areas yet — there is still much open to interpretation and discussion in implementing IndieWeb approaches like microformats, which don’t have widespread adoption and thus can be a bit in flux. From this description, it seems the IndieWeb straddles these categories and challenges: some IndieWeb technologies are stable while others still have experimental elements and community members take different approaches to solving the same problem, and the very future of the Internet and IndieWeb’s role are somewhat up for discussion.

This presents a conundrum for the IndieWeb because while understanding something like microformats requires a bit of technical explanation, a technical background isn’t necessarily needed to have an opinion or participate in discussion, yet there may be hesitancy from non-technical folks (like me 😉) to chime in where a subject is perceived to be technical. Likewise, while following a welcoming code of conduct and friendly practices in chat, the active community is dominated by men, many with technical expertise and/or long-standing participation, and there are barriers to participation for women and marginalized groups. I don’t have any answers, but find it valuable anyway to define the problem space.