[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Mon Apr 18 18:34:30 PDT 2016
Chris, in my view the object of collaboration is an
important element in structuring collaboration and
understanding it, and you are right, also, in my view, that
collaboration has an important dimension of time involved.
In both connections it is important how the object changes.
And I don't think there is any "downtown" when it comes to
the meanings, connotations and differences between
cooperation and collaboration.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 19/04/2016 10:34 AM, Christopher Schuck wrote:
> Hi, I'm brand new to this listserve and not necessarily
> well versed in the fields of education or communication,
> so I apologize if any of this post is redundant or
> irrelevant. I had a question about collaboration vs.
> communication and this essential core feature of
> difference or potential conflict. Would it be at all
> accurate to say that collaboration is also bounded in some
> sense by the parameters of a specific project or goal,
> that it adds an explicitly temporal dimension (e.g., does
> not continue indefinitely), whereas cooperation refers
> purely to the process of working "together" without
> speaking to the broader context of what this work
> represents or where it is going? It seems that one
> implication of what Andy is saying is that cooperation is
> less "ambitious" than collaboration, that it is more
> restricted or limited in some way. But must this be based
> on there being no meaningful differences between the
> cooperators, or might it lie in the degree of formality
> and structure characterizing the work being done and level
> of commitment required? Or, in the way any significant
> differences are regarded and incorporated?
>
> I find it interesting that in its ordinary use,
> "cooperation" (at least, to me) seems to connotes more of
> an initial tension between the parties involved or some
> idea of compromise (those who might otherwise be in
> conflict or disagreement "put aside their differences" for
> a larger goal, e.g. parties to the UN cooperate with a
> treaty), whereas collaboration retains and even cultivates
> those differences, even as those different actors continue
> to work together for a larger goal that unites them. With
> respect to the earlier discussion of marriage as a
> collaboration, I cannot help but think of the Clintons as
> the paradigmatic "collaborative couple" - yet, this does
> not at all strike me as a collaboration in the sense being
> discussed here.
>
> Chris S.
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different
> directions. But I think the conflict is an essential
> part of collaboration. Collaboration is unity and
> difference. Both are required or there is no
> collaboration. The "conflict" may be trivial, but then
> the moment of collaboration is trivial as well. And
> the learning is trivial.
>
> I take collaboration as essentially between distinct,
> i,e, mutually independent subjects. If two people who
> are clones of each other work together on the same
> task, since their every thought is identical there is
> no conflict. Equally two employees, for example,
> carrying out orders from the same boss, work together,
> I don't see this as collaboration. But these are
> trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have
> differences relevant to the task at hand, and unless
> it is just a routine division of labour (which I call
> cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or suppressed,
> there has to be some conflict, some ripple on the waters.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
>
> Hi Larry and Andy,
>
> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I
> might bring in a little bit of Mark Granovetter
> and Everett Rogers, marriage is a strong tie
> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to
> it, as Larry says, so that the relationship is
> sustainable through even adversarial conflict, or
> does not collapse at the first sign of conflict.
> But most collaborations, especially those that
> lead to problem solving, are based in weak tie
> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties
> networks can only lead to cooperation. Isn't
> there something to collaboration that allows
> individuals without a prior or even sustainable
> relationship to come together to create change
> through evolutionary disagreement that does not
> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it
> something else.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On
> Behalf Of Lplarry
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM
> To: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>; eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
>
> Andy,
> This introduction of the image of marriage as the
> archetype of collaboration certainly opens the
> concept of collaboration to multiple aspects of
> *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*.
> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us
> into a vast field of shared (and conflictual)
> meanings.
> Interesting how this image opens towards the
> imaginal and then travels to distinguishing ZPD
> from scaffolding.
>
> To move from co-operation towards collaboration
> (as marriage) is moving towards notions of
> *commitment* and *determinate relations* that
> remain always *open to change* but within a
> continuing commitment/collaboration.
>
> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for
> engaging the concept of collaboration. Marriage as
> socio-historically meaningful.
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> From: Andy Blunden
> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
>
> The field is rife with different definitions; I
> choose the set of definitions which suit the
> overall concept I am developing. Can't do anything
> about that! But the issue of
> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called
> collaboration in which conflict is either
> suppressed or organised away is certainly not
> worthy of the name.
>
> That said, conflict has the potential always to
> destroy a collaboration, and at the same time can
> be moderated so successfully that it is positively
> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is
> marriage, so we all know what this is about.
> Managing conflict is the most essential element of
> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as
> well as moderating it.
>
> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding"
> question.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for your response. I would like to put
> aside the issue of computers which I think is
> extraordinarily complex (are we talking about
> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or
> Artificial Intelligence or Augmentation? More
> and more I am feeling these distinctions are
> critical).
>
> But your post does refer to issues I am
> struggling with. There has been a lot of talk
> of the difference between cooperation and
> collaboration at a number of levels. Right
> now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction
> which is cooperation is engaging in community
> work for your own needs - so you never really
> give yourself up to the learning community,
> while collaboration involves actually creating
> a community. Others I think see collaboration
> as the development of shared meaning while
> cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right
> word, right?) action towards a goal. I think
> both to a certain degree reflect your thinking.
>
> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which
> I think would be antithetical to PISA's
> conception of collaboration, they seem to be
> looking to cut down on conflict as much as
> possible. It also seems to work against a
> number of uses of collaboration in the field
> of education. Does Alfie Kohn talk about
> collaboration - what would he say about conflict.
>
> So I'm thinking though these just working
> together visions of collaboration are missing
> that "something" and conflict, as
> counter-intuitive as it is to models of
> collaboration might make sense. But what do
> we mean by conflict.
>
> Is it conflict between members of the
> collaborative group or is it the abilities of
> the collaborative group to see conflict
> between their solutions and the realities of
> the world around them (I know, another loaded
> phrase).
>
> We also have a tendency to see conflict of
> adversarial. If there is one thing I think
> collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in
> nature. So can ideas be in conflict without
> individuals raising those being adversarial
> with each other. What if people are
> adversarial to each other and yet still work
> together to accomplish important things, or is
> this cooperation? Or is these another concept
> that hasn't been defined, or perhaps I am not
> grasping?
>
> The danger with PISA's definition is there is
> really no mechanism for change. Should
> collaboration have a mechanism for change or
> innovation?
>
> Thoughts running around my head.
>
> MIchael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On
> Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM
> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
>
> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe,
> Michael, so I'll offer some observations.
>
> Collaboration as "together working" means
> specifically working together to a common
> object (aim). That generally entails working
> together to change an object-of-labour
> (/Arbeitsgegenstand/).
>
> There is a lot of discussion about the
> difference between Collaboration and the
> etymologically identical Cooperation, much of
> this is in the "educational debate." As I see
> it, Collaboration essentially involves both
> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one
> form or aspect of collaboration, because the
> parties are working towards two opposite
> concepts of the same object. "Object" here
> therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean
> the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked
> upon, or the Gegenstand, the object aimed for.
> Both ideas incorporate the possibility of
> difference.
>
> Collaboration essentially involves the coming
> together of distinct parties (or subjects).
> True Collaboration involves a merging of the
> subjectivities for the course of a single
> project, but there are "limiting cases" of
> non-collaborative collaboration. These include
> an exchange of labour governed by a
> negotiation of a contract (such as
> customer-service provider in which the
> subjects retain their mutual independence
> throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one
> subject is subordinated to another).
>
> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the
> working relationship usually because there is
> a division of labour; Collaboration on the
> other hand involves each party taking a
> critical attitude towards the contribution of
> the other party. o conflict is an essential
> ingredient to Collaboration.
>
> Collaboration is a learning process, to the
> extent that one could argue that learning can
> *only* be a Collaborative process. So
> Collaboration means that the object (aim) of
> the labour changes, because the /concept /of
> the object changes.
> Collaborators learn about the object (worked
> upon) in the process of working on it, and the
> object (aim) by realising it.
>
> In education there has been an unfortunate
> development in which (1) students work
> independently because they are physically or
> organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration
> between the students is then facilitated by
> the use of computer and communication
> equipment, (3) Students who are already
> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a
> computer between them so that their
> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face,
> mediated only by the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they
> now find their Collaboration mediated by a
> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to
> mean the undermining of Collaboration by the
> use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer
> collaboration.
>
> And this is the danger. The education
> bureaucracy has heard a bit about the benefits
> of Collaboration as a learning process, and
> that Collaboration requires equipment. So they
> get the idea that they have to separate
> students or researchers from one another so
> that they can collaborate.
> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide
> equipment to allow students
> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having
> been separated from one
> another. And the same goes for
> students+teachers, research+industry,
> management+workers, etc.
>
> Does that help, Michael?
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have a question for anybody who might be
> willing to respond. How do you define
> collaboration? What spurs this question
> is that PISA is developing a framework for
> testing collaboration internationally. At
> first I thought I was getting punked, but
> it really is happening, the framework is
> at the link below. The idea of
> collaboration is being used more and more
> - especially in contexts that involve
> computer/web based research, but it often
> times seems to be a placeholder. The word
> only came into vogue late nineteenth
> century I think - col meaning together
> and labore meaning to labor. A lot of
> people who discuss collaboration invoke
> Vygotsky (e.g. the PISA framework) or
> sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of
> sure Dewey never actually used the word
> collaboration, but I might be wrong).
> Anyway the PISA document defines
> collaboration but in a very simplistic way
> I think so that it is not wrong but not
> helpful. I know there was some research
> around language (being able
>
> to
>
> create shared meanings). But so far
> to me it seems to miss the point, but I
> can't think what I would replace it with.
> I guess you could call this a request for
> comments. I find PISA creating a test for
> collaboration kind of dangerous.
>
> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor
> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list