Definition: In her book "Fields of Green," Rebecca A. Martusewicz calls the exchange of information collaborative intelligence. She further describes Collaborative Intelligence consists of a complex interactive system of communication and transformation where information is created and exchanged as various elements enter into relationship with each other (2009). I find resonance with her philosophical perspective on Collaborative Intelligence, here is what she wrote:

“I am a gardener. In my garden I pick up a handful of soil, squeezing it in my fist. The force I apply sticks the matter in my hand together; it holds, and its very elasticity sends me a strong message about its possibilities. But what is going on here? The specific relationships between all of the various elements in the soil—the water content, the specific minerals, the humus, and the microorganisms—work together to create a particular response in my hand and, mediated by the language that I use to interpret it, tell me something about what it can do for the plants growing there. And if I raise the soil to my nose and breathe in deeply, another whole set of messages are sent via the odors that this specific elemental combination creates. All these elements are in a particular differentiating relationship to each other, and to my own senses and prior knowledge about soil. That is, they form a differentiating system of communication that sends messages to me and to other elements in the garden, the plants they feed, for example. I say differentiating here because they are in relationships that make a difference in terms of what they form together; it is the very differences among them, those spaces of relationship, that create the specific quality of the soil as a whole, and eventually of the plants they feed. Any change in those relationships would make a definitive difference in the makeup of the soil and its possibilities for the plants, and eventually the quality of the food I might eat from them. We could say that these changes would be differences that make a difference. They would create the meaning in the system that creates all possible changes creating life. Intelligence, then, involves a process of collaboration among all these elements as they combine and communicate with one another, as well as with me, via their differences. In fact, what I know (or think I know) is only possible because of the whole system as it engages this communication process among differences making differences, and is, thus, much more than just the operation of my own cognitive abilities.”

In the context of e-learning, Collaborative Intelligence can be described as a dynamic interactive framework of communication and transformation. Within the Web 2.0 (or the AI-centric Web 3.0 in the near future) environment, information is not only generated but also actively exchanged, facilitated by the interplay between different elements that establish meaningful relationships with each other.

Example in practice: Wikipedia is one of the most well-known and widely used collaborative knowledge creation and sharing tool. Wiki is the very answer to this question: What could it mean that intelligence or knowledge, or perhaps even wisdom, comes to us from our participation in a larger ecological system (Martusewicz, 2009)? She acknowledges that intelligence, even knowledge, is not born of the human capacity to think or make sense of the world alone. Rather, it is the result of a collaborative endeavor among humans and the more-than-human world (Martusewicz, 2009).

Wiki's model of open collaboration allows for continuous contributions and development. In Network Logic written by Michael A. Peters and Daniel Araya, Wikipedia is mentioned as “a dynamic tool for researcher and layman alike. Carrying the slogan “The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” Wikipedia is the first collaboratively constructed encyclopedia built on a democratic network structure. What makes P2P ecologies specifically different from other modes of social and economic collaboration is that they do not rely on monetary incentives (extrinsic factors) or fixed, hierarchical organization. Instead formal authority is “organic,” emerging and receding with the domain-based expertise needed to complete specific tasks. It is literally “person-to-person” production that depends on the voluntary participation (intrinsic factors - Esteem and Self-actualization needs) ) of partners. As an emergent mode of production, P2P not only “flattens” the organizational pyramid, it creates an ecology of exchange without recourse to higher authority at all. Moving beyond the one-to-many logic characteristic of industrial manufacturing, P2P introduces network logic (Peters & Araya, 2009).” A set of socialized network characteristics by George Siemens (2005) was listed as follow in Network Logic (Peters & Araya, 2009):

• Informal, not structured. The system should not define the learning and discussion that happens. The system should be flexible enough to allow participants to create according to their needs.
• Tool-rich. Many opportunities for users to dialogue and connect.
• Consistency and time. New communities, projects, and ideas start with much hype and promotion, and then slowly fade. To create a knowledge sharing ecology, participants need to see a consistently evolving environment.
• Trust. High, social contact (face-to-face or online) is needed to foster a sense of trust and comfort. Secure and safe environments are critical for trust to develop.
• Simplicity. Other characteristics need to be balanced with the need for simplicity. Great ideas fail because of complexity. Simple, social approaches work most effectively. The selection of tools and the creation of the community structure should reflect this need for simplicity.
• Decentralized, fostered, connected; as compared to centralized, managed, and isolated.
• High tolerance for experimentation and failure. (Siemens, 2005)

As we have endeavored to show, the key to an ecological worldview is understanding the dynamic nature of self-organizing systems. Even while matter forms its base, nature is not constrained by entropy but functions as an open system, “importing” energy across system boundaries. In nature, the distinction between open and closed systems lies in the permeability of a system’s boundaries. It is the capacity of an open system to self-organize by exchanging matter and energy with its surrounding environment that enables it to evolve. This capacity for “autopoiesis” (Varela, Maturana, & Uribe, 1974) is precisely what gives ecological networks their incredible capacity for growth. When this system permeability is translated into the context of social networks such as Wikipedia, it manifests in the mass importation of ideas and labor (Peters & Araya, 2009).

References:

Rebecca A. Martusewicz, Fields of green : restorying culture, environment, and education / edited by Marcia McKenzie ... [et al.], Chapter 14, Educating for “Collaborative Intelligence” (link to PDF)

Michael A. Peters and Daniel Araya, Fields of green : restorying culture, environment, and education / edited by Marcia McKenzie ... [et al.], Chapter 13, Network Logic P.239 (link to PDF)

Siemens, G. (2005). Learning development cycle: Bridging learning design and modern knowledge needs. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from elearnspace Web site: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/ldc.htm.

Varela, F., Maturana, H., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5, 187–196.