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

[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration



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
> >
>
>