Module 4 Blog: Second Life

Is Second Life a disruptive technology?  According to Thornburg (2009), a disruptive technology is one that has the function of an existing technology but is more efficient than the existing technology.  This essentially renders the existing technology obsolete.

To answer the question of whether Second Life (SL) is a disruptive technology, we have to consider the technology SL replaced and the emergence trajectory of SL.  SL is a virtual world.  It is not a game.  According to Rosedale (2008), one of the complaints from gamers is that SL has below average graphics and gaming options.  The point of SL is not the game; the point is it is a growing virtual world. Rosedale (2008) also noted that SL mirrors culture and the trajectory of SL mirrors the social and anthropological trajectory of an emerging culture.  From a social and even anthropological stance, SL disrupts the notion that you have to have a homogenous group to begin a culture/community. 

What about the technology though?  Chat rooms in the late 70s and through the early 90s could be one technology that SL has replaced.  Instead of just text-based chat rooms, SL offers a virtual world where residents (SL users) interact.  I think the important point about the technology of SL is that it offers an alternative for education and business.  For instance, New Mexico State University offers a geology course in SL and Kaplan University offers a crime scene investigation class that utilizes SL.  Thornburg’s definition of disruptive technology includes the requirement that the new technology be more efficient.  In this respect, SL courses are cheaper and offer more students the opportunity to practice the skills being taught. 

The emergence trajectory of SL is interesting.  In 2003 it opened.  In his 2008 TED speech, Rosedale noted that while growth in SL still occurred, it occurred at a slower pace.  Will SL continue to grow?  I am not sure.  I am not a SL resident.  Based on criticisms though, it seems that SL graphics have to improve for gamers to take the platform more serious.  I also think that for schools to use SL more, there has to be an ease of use and understanding from non-gamers on how to navigate the SL worlds.

There are social benefits and implications with SL.  One of the biggest benefits is the ability to interact with others without ever leaving your home.  For persons who are not able to leave their home for a variety of reasons like medical or disability, SL offers practical experience in the form of classes, and social interaction with others.  Rosedale (2009) made the point that as social creatures, humans look for social interactions to make sense of their worlds.  SL offers this.  More importantly, is Rosedale’s point that SL mimics culture.  As a social benefit, this characteristic allows social scientists to hypothesize and test questions about cultural and social behavior.

In higher education, the implication of SL is that more students have the potential to get more practical experience in online or distance education settings.  Conversely, is there enough social interaction in this experience to mirror F2F experience?  While I do not think SL will replace teachers, I do think SL will replace lab experiences.  This lowers the cost in higher education and changes how students will receive knowledge.

My opinion on SL is still forming.  I can see the benefits of SL, especially in education and research.  My concern is whether it is another technology that removes human interaction.

References

Rosedale, P. (2008). Philip Rosedale on Second Life [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/the_inspiration_of_second_life.html.

Thornburg, D.   (2009). Emerging and future technology. Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore, MD: Laureate Education, Inc.

Rosedale's TED: