[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory

[Andy Blunden]

I am suggesting, Larry, that collaboration rather than discourse could 
prove to be a very productive frame for analysis of human activity such 
as Donna considered. But it is always wrong, of course, to suggest that 
some other frame is to be discounted. Every frame of analysis gives us 
specific insights. In that sense I overstated my claim. I was wrong to 
suggest a consideration of types of collaboration "rather than" detailed 
analysis of interactions. Obviously both should be used. Collaboration 
puts the content rather than the form at the centre of analysis. To look 
at types of collaboration allows that people participate in a project 
with very different motives and can be legitimately understood by other 
collaborators in such differing roles.
For example if two artists collaborate in producing a piece of public 
art, the expectations are very different from when an artist employs a 
technician with specialist skills. Expectations are very different. But 
if one or the other party were to be confused about the type of 
collaboration being carried out, and consequently their respective 
roles, then great hurt would ensue.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/


Larry Purss wrote:
> Andy,
>
> I experienced your question and as a sudden shift in the 
> collaboration. The exploration of positioning theory was moving in the 
> direction of questioning the potential of collaboration is an ideal 
> that may be constrained. The *meaning* of collaboration was being 
> modified and tending in one direction.
> Your reflection on the value of reflection as a *core* value shifted 
> our engagement with this concept and collaboration *felt* different. 
> Collaboration went from feeling *suspect* to being a valued term. THIS 
> phenomena  as felt tendency re-positions the concept of collaboration 
> in our community.
> Andy, you then propose the more appropriate *posing* [positioning] of 
> this question must be *what TYPE of collaboration* is or is not in the 
> best interest of this or that student. Which then poses/positions the 
> question of "What TYPES of collaboration are there?".
>
> You suggest that EACH TYPE has a NORM and the particular ways the 
> students in this class are *normed* I would pose as expressing a 
> particular VALUE position.
> Therefore *types* AND *posings* AND *positionings* AND *values* AND 
> *norms* OF collaboration becomes a particular TYPE of storyline [genre??]
>
> You are suggesting the concept *collaborative* is preferable to 
> *discourse*. I'm assuming you also would prefer *collaboration* to the 
> concept *dialogue*.
>
> I am curious if others share Andy's preference for the concept 
> *collaboration* and exploring TYPES OR KINDS of collaboration as a way 
> to *reveal* [unmask??] the dynamic flow of  *streams* of collaboration 
> as expanding and extending the understanding of BOTH positioning 
> theory AND collaboration.
>
> I will send a comment on another post which indicates the origin of 
> Harre's positioning theory within Vygotsky's cultural historical 
> theory AS a humanistic storyline
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     Donna, I agree that "Collaboration is incredible complex" but then
>     you add "and hard to achieve."
>     Rather than taking it that "collaboration" means one very strictly
>     defined norm, couldn't we accept that all the phenomena you
>     describe (and more) are aspects of collaboration, and that there
>     is more than one norm of collaboratin and many more ways of
>     falling short of normativity, of being betrayed, exploited,
>     disappointed, misunderstood, etc., etc.? I prefer to take every
>     human relationship as an instance of collaboration, that is, I
>     take collaboration as the lens through which to understand human
>     relationships. But rather than setting up one norm against which
>     every human experience turns out to be a dreadful failure, we
>     could see every human experience as being a window on the
>     experience of collaboration, the expectations, the productivity,
>     the potential for disappointment, exploitation, etc.? Is there a
>     better way to understand human relationship? Discourse? I think
>     "collaboration" is a superior conceptual framework than "discouse."
>
>     Andy
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>
>