[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory

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 Blunden*

Larry Purss wrote:

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 Blunden*
    http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>

Status: O