Skip to main content

Network Promises and Their Implications

Las promesas de la red y sus implicaciones


The new learning environment characterized by P2P networking allows for new forms of learning and new ways of knowledge production. One must be careful, however, not to confuse the more mature concepts of fluid and relative knowledge, which learners gradually develop through dialog and exchange, with some kind of epistemological revolution mandated by the new networked environment itself.

Interactive networks have been represented as somewhat “ideal” environments where nodes are equally dispersed and connected in an environment devoid of the constraints of space or time. While it is certainly true that P2P interactivity offers immense new possibilities for learners, we must strive to understand the dialectical nature of the new environment. What appears to be an ideally democratic social space can in fact be subjected to hidden power distribution and arcane control.

Learner control is one important dimension of networked communications, with implications reaching all the way to questioning the nature of learning and knowing. While network enthusiasts are prone to proclaim the new age of the “creative commons”, some very real steps are being taken to upset this trend, and we should caution that copyright issues are far from being resolved in this environment.


El nuevo entorno de aprendizaje definido por las redes P2P facilita nuevas formas de aprendizaje y nuevos sistemas de producción de conocimiento. Sin embargo, se ha de procurar no confundir los conceptos más evolucionados de conocimiento relativo y conocimiento fluido, que los estudiantes adquieren gradualmente a través del diálogo y el intercambio, con la revolución epistemológica que exige el nuevo entorno de red.

Las redes interactivas se han representado como entornos hasta cierto punto «ideales» en los que los nodos están a la vez dispersos y conectados a un entorno carente de limitaciones espaciales o temporales. Si bien es cierto que la interactividad P2P ofrece inmensas posibilidades a los estudiantes, debemos procurar entender la naturaleza dialéctica del nuevo entorno. Lo que parece un espacio social idealmente democrático, en realidad, puede estar sometido a un reparto de poderes oculto y a un sistema encubierto de control.

El control del estudiante es una de las dimensiones más importantes de las comunicaciones en red, con implicaciones que llevan a poner en tela de juicio el aprendizaje y el conocimiento. Aunque los partidarios de la red se sientan inclinados a proclamar el nacimiento de la era de los «creative commons», se están tomando medidas muy efectivas para dar al traste con este movimiento, y, por otro lado, es preciso advertir que los problemas de copyright están lejos de resolverse en este entorno.


  1. BARABÁSI, A. L. (2003). Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life. New York: The Penguin Group (Plume).

    Google Scholar 

  2. BAXTER-MAGOLDA, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  3. BRANIGAN, T. (2010). “China jails investigator into Sichuan earthquake schools” [online article]. The Guardian, February 26. <>

  4. CANDY, P. (1991). Self-direction in learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  5. DOWNES S. (2006). “Learning networks and connective knowledge” [online paper]. University of Georgia, College of Education. [Accessed: 30 January 2010]. <>

  6. DRON, J. (2002). Achieving self-organisation in network-based learning environment [online doctoral thesis]. Final Draft, Brighton, University of Brighton. <>

    Google Scholar 

  7. GOODFELLOW, R.; LEA, M. (2008). Challenging e-learning in the university: A literacies perspective. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. GROW, G. O. (1991). “Teaching learners to be self-directed”. Adult Education Quarterly. Vol. 41, No 3, pages 125–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. HAGEL, J. (2006). “The economics of attention” [blog post]. Edge Perspectives. [Accessed: January 2010]. <>

  10. HELFRICH, S. (2010). “World Social Forum, 10 years after: Elements of a new agenda: the commons” [online paper]. Presented at the 9th World Social Forum. Bélem: Brazil. <>

  11. KNOWLES, M. (1972). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. KOHLBERG, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: the nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  13. KOP, R. (2010). Networked Connectivity and Adult Learning: Social Media, the Knowledgeable Other and Distance Education. Doctoral Thesis, Final Draft, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  14. LANHAM, R. A. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information. The University of Chicago Press.

  15. LONG, H. B. (1993). Emerging perspectives of self-directed learning. Research Center for Professional and Continuing Education: University of Oklahoma.

  16. MCSHERRY, C. (2001). Who Owns Academic Work? Battling for Control of Intellectual Property. Harvard University Press.

  17. MEJIAS, U. (2009a). “Peerless: The ethics of P2P network disassembly”. Paper presented at the 4th Inclusiva-net Meeting: P2P Networks and Processes, 6–10 July 2009, Madrid, Spain.

  18. MEJIAS, U. (2009b). “Peerless: The ethics of P2P network disassembly” [online paper]. Presented at the 4th Inclusiva-net Meeting, Madrid, Spain. <>

  19. MEJIAS, U. (2009c). “Digital labor” [online paper]. Presented at the New York School, Eugene Lang College, 12–14 November 2009. <>

  20. MEJIAS, U. (2007). Networked proximity: ICTs and the mediation of nearness. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Teachers College, Columbia University.

  21. OSTROM, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

  22. PERRY, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  23. ROBINSON, J. (1969). The economics of imperfect competition. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  24. SELL, S. K. (2005). “Economic Concentration, Property Rights, and Access to Technology: Agriculture and Developing Countries” [online paper]. Presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii. <>

  25. SHIRKY, C. (2008). Here comes Everybody. The power of organizing without organizations. New York: The Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. SIEMENS, G. (2008). “New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning”. Paper presented at the Encontro Sobre Web 2.0., Braga, Portugal, 10 October 2008.

  27. SIEMENS, G. (2010). “The age of external knowledge” [blog post]. <>

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Bouchard PhD.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bouchard, P. Network Promises and Their Implications. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento 8, 288–302 (2011).

Download citation


  • critical network theory
  • self-directed learning
  • learner control
  • creative commons
  • copyleft

Palabras clave

  • teoría crítica de la red
  • aprendizaje autodirigido
  • control del estudiante
  • creative commons
  • copyleft