Networked learning a relational approach: weak
and strong ties
C.R. Jones,* D. Ferreday† & V. Hodgson‡
*The Institute for Educational Technology, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
†Institute for Cultural Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YD, UK
‡The Department of Management Learning, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK
Abstract In this paper, we explore the idea of weak ties in networked learning. We go back to the original
conception of the strength of weak ties and relate this to Bakhtin and a dialogic understanding
of networked learning. These theoretical ideas are applied to the examination of two networked
settings in which educational leaders exchange ideas and have the potential to create
knowledge. We examine these networks from the point of view of the overall pattern of interac-
tion and from an interest in the kinds of dialogues engaged in by participants in the network. We
identify an area for further research in a comparison of the dimensions of links that appear to be
weaker in these networks, those concerning affective aspects of the relationship, with those
concerned with the sharing of knowledge which appear to be relatively well developed. We
suggest that presence and proximity become forms of telepresence and tele-proximity and rely
more heavily on interactional means to achieve identity formation. Finally we note that knowl-
edge is negotiated and the marks of its personal and situated origin are essential parts of the
exchange through dialogue.
Keywords community, dialogue, networked learning, networks, weak ties.
Introduction
Networked learning focuses on the connections
between learners, learners and tutors, and between
learners and the resources they make use of in their
learning. This approach to learning suggests a rela-
tional view in which learning takes place in relation to
others and also in relation to an array of learning
resources (Jones 2004; Jones & Esnault 2004). This
view of networked learning has been explicitly applied
to networked management learning employing a dia-
logic approach (Hodgson & Watland 2004). Our view of
networks is informed by the idea of scale-free networks,
which are a regular pattern of organization found in
network environments, and the ways in which an order
of this type may affect learning (Barabasi 2002;
Buchanan 2003). Networked learning understood in
this way does not necessarily privilege any particular
types of relationships, either between people or between
people and resources. As such it differs from two of the
more popular approaches applied to the use of compu-
ters and digital networks in education, communities of
practice (CoPs) and computer supported collaborative
learning (CSCL).
Both CSCL and CoPs place an emphasis on the
strong relationships found in communities and collabo-
ration, relationships that imply a certain closeness and
unity of purpose. These approaches also tend to empha-
size human–human relations even when these are medi-
ated through an electronic network and are separated by
time and distance. Network analysis has the potential
to focus more strongly on the relationship between
Accepted: 5 November 07
Correspondence: Chris Jones, 27, Halkyn Avenue, Liverpool, L17
2AH, UK. Email: c.r.jones@open.ac.uk
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00271.x
SPECIAL SECTION
Original article
90 © 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2008), 24, 90–102

humans and the objective forms through which media-
tion takes place, either the device connecting the person
to the network or the resources through which the rela-
tionship between persons become reified.
In this paper we explore examples of networks and
networked learning that allow for the possibility of
relationships involving weak ties and looser and less
focused groupings. We take the view that strong and
weak links are not mutually exclusive. Strong and
weak ties are relative conceptions, and strong and weak
ties may coexist in any given set of relationships. We
suggest that the strong ties found in community and col-
laboration are likely to be special cases of a rather more
general set of phenomena found in networks and involv-
ing ties with a variety of forms and strengths. Two other
papers in this special section also deal with the nature of
weak links and how to characterize relationships in net-
works (Enriquez 2008; Ryberg and Larsen 2008).
Wellman et al. (2003) and Castells (2000) describe
the form of sociality in network society as ‘networked
individualism’ (Castells 2001, p. 129 ff). On the one
hand, they argue that the new economy is organized
around global networks that imply an increasing inter-
dependence and cooperation, and yet on the other hand,
the work process is increasingly individualized. This
general social trend raises fundamental questions about
the relationships between the networked society and the
organization of learning. The term ‘networked individu-
alism’ suggests that it is possible to take a critical
approach to theories of community based on consensus
and collaboration, without ruling out the possibility of
communication and dialogue. In this paper we examine
the use of digital networks by educational leaders. The
posts occupied by such workers are often isolated and
the use of digital networks has been suggested as a way
of developing forms of cooperation and community. We
examine the interactions in such environments to try to
characterize the types of links that are made during the
processes of engagement in and through the network.
Weak ties
Network theory would suggest that the strong notions of
community contained in CoPs might ignore the impor-
tance of the ‘strength of weak ties’. The idea of the
strength of weak ties originates in a paper written by
Granovetter (1973) in which he develops this notion as a
way of linking macro and micro approaches in
sociological theory. Furthermore, he argues that previ-
ous network theory had implicitly prioritized strong ties
that were primarily within small well-defined groups.
Weak ties, he argued, would allow for the analysis of
interaction between groups and for analysis of social
activity that was not confined to primary social groups.
Weak ties are also a potentially interesting topic to
explore in relation to digital networks in which we are
concerned with large relatively diffuse groups in which
there may be no clear boundaries (see also Ryberg and
Larsen 2008). This approach also suggests a connection
with the question of boundary objects and the way in
which different kinds of links relate to boundaries
(Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2006).
Granovetter offered the following definition of the
strength of an ‘interpersonal’ tie:
The strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of
the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy
(mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which
characterize the tie. (Granovetter 1973, p. 1361)
An assumption, which he adopted for simplicity, was
that ties were positive and symmetric rather than
negative or asymmetric in character. Granovetter also
discounted certain face-to-face ties that are existent but
extremely weak, treating them as absent links. The
examples he gave for weak links were ‘nodding’ rela-
tionships with near neighbours and the casual relation-
ship one might have with a newspaper vendor. In draw-
ing comparison with work by Milgram, Granovetter
accepted that ‘friend’ in Milgram’s work could be
thought of as a strong link, while ‘acquaintance’ would
equate to a weak link. It should be borne in mind that
Granovetter’s work preceded digital networks by some
years, and the kinds of relationship he discusses are
limited by the usual geographical and temporal con-
straints of a face-to-face environment. Granovetter is
also concerned with individuals, and networks in this
view are composed of persons who form nodes and the
links are relationships between these people. Currently,
networks composed of digital media are more likely to
be thought of as comprising nodes of various types,
including individuals, small, medium and large organi-
zations, technological artefacts and systems, etc. The
stance Granovetter takes is also one that tends towards
an essentialism, which describes networks as collec-
tions of individuals, and suggests that networks are what
individual nodes make of them. This view could be
Networked learning: weak and strong ties 91
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd