Thematic manual for thematic networks
Mart Laanpere (Tallinn University)

1. Introduction
UNIVe Thematic Networks sub-project (Workgroup 5, WG5) was aiming at exploring different ways of organising inter-university cooperation for development of e-learning in specific domain areas. Thematic networks (defined as virtual communities of practice consisting of academic staff members who teach the same subject in at least three different universities) were seen as the main instrument for enhancing such cooperation. The activities of WG5 were focusing mainly at organisation, activities and financing of thematic networks. Four carefully selected instances of successful thematic networks in the context of European higher education were studied by WG5 members, analysis of these case studies resulted with an Action Plan for developing and piloting four thematic networks in the context of Estonian E-university. Implementation of this Action Plan involved facilitating the growth and activities of pilot networks. During the pilot phase, EeU thematic networks developed new joint e-courses, digital learning resources and virtual collaboration space.

As „networks“ and „networking“ are used as key terms in this chapter, some further clarification of meaning, importance and typology of social networks is needed before proceeding with the analysis. The concept of network has been used in various domains (mathematics, computer science, mass media) with quite different meaning. One thing still seems to be common for all of these different networks – initially these concepts were used as metaphors referring to the fishing net. Contemporary American philosopher Richard Rorty has described the evolution of scientific terminology in new domains: simple and powerful, yet poetically ambiguous metaphors are used to explain the new concepts through illustrative reference to a well-known things or phenomenae that have visual, auditive or other kind of resemblance with the target concept. Gradually, more exact meaning for a metaphor will be re-defined and negotiated by the experts until exact, consensus-based definition in encyclopediae will remove any ambiguity from the term. This has already happened with the „network“ metaphor in e.g. computer science, where „computer networks“ and „neural network programming“ are quite well established terms. In social sciences, „networking“ seems to be still in a metaphoric phase, despite there have been attempts to xxx (Barnes: „social network“, Granovetter: „social network analysis“, Castells: „network society“).
The general image of social network refers to a non-hierarchical structure (either social, technological or conceptual) that resembles at large to a fishing-net because it consists of numerous nodes that are interconnected with links. Van Aalst (2003) has defined social networking as „the systematic establishment and use (management) of internal and external links (communication, interaction and co-ordination) between people, teams and organisations („nodes“) in order to improve performance“. Social networks have gained an important role as vehicles for innovation, e.g. European Commission has been investing innovation-oriented funds into various networks under Comenius, Erasmus and 6.Framework programmes.

In their recent study, Buchberger et al (2005) have analysed the success factors of networking for innovation in education. Four dimensions for analysing the successful networks were drawn:
– social/psychological: common purpose, shared values and norms, strong group identity
– technological: information resources, communication and collaboration tools, knowledge building tools, continuous documenting and making accessible the „shared memory“ of the network
– pedagogical: shared educational purposes, paradigm of social learning
– managerial: distributed model of leadership, agreed procedural rules and decision-making norms, self-management, empowerment, facilitating the growth of community.

Upon the establishment of the consortium-based E-university, a strategic decision has been made by partners: in order to facilitate the „normalisation“ of e-learning in universities and mass-production of new e-courses by academic staff, development of domain-specific communities of practice (i.e. thematic networks) have to be supported financially and organisationally. This chapter is describing the results of this process, consisting of four phases:
1) analysis of successful thematic networks in European higher education
2) based on this analysis, modeling the organisational, managerial and financial framework for facilitating thematic networks in a consortium-based e-university
3) writing an action plan for thematic network development and testing
4) validating the model and action plan.