Introduction
As a new emerging field of practice, digital leadership development (DLD) has a lot to learn and borrow from others. For example, they can look at how distance education leaders have led distance education development in the U.S. since the 19th century. In fact, it can be argued that DLD is not a new concept and can be traced back to the beginning of distance education when a small group of people were looking into the use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) to deliver training and education remotely, which is, in fact, still an important component of today’s DLD.
Though requires much more complexed knowledge and skills, today’s digital leaders will benefit from taking a closer look at what their predecessors did to advocate distance education development, one of which is the development of social capital. Bourdieu defines social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (1986, p.248). Distance education pioneers successfully developed social capitals by becoming a member of different groups that we now refer to as the Community of Practices (CoPs). Those groups shared “a concern, a set of problems, or a passions about” distance education, and deepened “their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4).
Living in two worlds simultaneously – the physical and digital worlds, digital leaders can potentially tap into two types of social capitals. The first one fits Bourdieu’s definition and is the social capital that is mentioned in most of the literature. The second one still refers to “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources” (Bourdieu, 1986, p.248) but accumulates through one’s presence on social media networks and is called social currency, a relatively new term coined by Dr. Erich Joachimsthaler in 2009, that emphasizes the importance of brand building in digital world. Corresponding to these two types of social capitals are two types of CoPs. The first one fits Wenger’s definition and refers to those mainly offline (with limited online activities) and relatively stable groups. Those groups that distance education pioneers joined to build their social capitals belong to this category. The second one refers to those Social-Media-Fueled Community of Practices (SM-F-CoPs) that are completely online (some with offline activities), widely open to the public, and very elusive.
