[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
Greg Mcverry
jgregmcverry@gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 07:35:02 PDT 2016
I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf
multiple perspectives.
Overall this has been a wonderful thread.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted in a
> male dominant discourse or view on the world" something like
> "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is
> destructive of collaboration.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote:
> >
> > I can find few to no instances where work and activity are
> > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others.
> >
> > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we
> > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do this
> > work while playing well with others.
> >
> > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would
> > therefore have to be central to work.
> >
> > Centering success and change as the result of conflict has
> > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant
> > discourse or view on the world.
> >
> > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those be the
> > poles of collaboration?
> >
> > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even though my
> > first real publication was on the development of these
> > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the recent
> > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so
> > called 21st century skills are better measured and
> > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the learner.
> >
> > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that
> > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of
> > collaboration.
> >
> > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational
> > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that
> > was never before possible due to limits of time and
> > distance...including this listserv.
> >
> > So collaboration... I like that, but testing
> > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu
> > <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this
> > discussion. I attach
> > one article. Interesting title, too.
> > mike
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural
> > science with an object
> > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list