I think this is the way the model plays out Don, because we are an academic hierarchical institution. My other case study of a school/town doesn't look like this.
bb
>Boy, Bill, this is exactly what I mean. What you describe sounds more like
>a committee than a community to me. I guess I have been reading far to much
>into the concept of community in CHAT. Time to re-structure!
>
>djc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@lesley.edu]
>Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:35 PM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: RE: LBE and 'community' category
>
>
>It was a quick note and not well explained, but you have caught me in the
>middle of adapting the model -- work in progress. I don't actually use the
>word 'group'. The way I am adapting the model, is to think of the
>'community' category as a way to capture the next level up in the hierarchy,
>and hence the next level of analysis. The hierarchy is the way we, who are
>within the system, characterize the organization of our institution, for
>example the level of accountability. So for example, a course is taught
>here within a program (or 'division'), so the triangle represents more or
>less well, the system of the course (I'm refering to a particular section --
>not the generically designed 'course', but one taking one semester and
>enacted by an ensemble of students and an instructor). A triangle may
>represent one section of the science course in the elementary program.
>
>'community' within that triangle captures how that course is woven into the
>next level up the hierarchy, i.e the program in which the course is taught.
>An instance of this level is the elementary education program. A second
>triangle represents the program, and in turn its community category
>capturing the next level up on the hierarchy of the school, i.e school of
>education. The Sch. of Ed. is related in turn, through community in its
>triangle to the university. The model is iterative and it scales.
>
>Community as I have begun to apply it, can be thought to be fairly broad at
>any level, and indeed, for any course, there is sometimes a group of
>instructors who irregularly meet, (subject category in the triangle the next
>level up) and who could be considered part of the program 'community' for
>any instance of teaching the course. But the instructors do meet
>irregularly, and, it is plausible that using an adaptation of Barker's
>interdependence rating that they do not contribute as heavily to shaping any
>instance of teaching a course as do other aspects of the
>'community'-become-activity-system of the program. But keeping 'community'
>more or less confined to those within the university, school, program for
>each of their embedded levels, keeps the analysis fairly neat. And it is
>after all a model, just a model, to capture the complexity and
>interrelatedness, and non-linearity of cause and effect within the
>institution. What I mean by 'more or less' is that we must address state
>mandates for teacher competencies, and so the state, outside the university,
>contributes to 'rules'. An exception to a clean model.
>
>bb
>
>
>
>
>
>>Bill, what criteria did you use to judge some group to be a community? I
>>assume, in asking this, that not all groups or collectives are communities.
>>Is that a valid assumption?
>>
>>djc
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@mail.lesley.edu]
>>Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:29 PM
>>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>Subject: LBE and 'community' category
>>
>>
>>Just a quick comment, Don, about the category 'community' and the triangle.
>> I'll be doing a presentation in DC at the end of the month about the
>>systemic changes at LU that would coincide with the adoption of computer
>>modeling practices here (for a DoE grant). The 'model' I'll be using is
>>the triangle, and 'community' allows the analysis of one triangle being
>>embedded within another,
>>
>>i.e. classroom->program->school->university
>>
>>in what might look rather fractal in form, if drawn completely. It is not
> >the only way to break out triangles hierarchically. For example lbe chpat
>>2 breaks them out differently into 'subject producing', 'artifact
>>producing' and so on. But the one i have chosen captures well the
>>hierarchical organizaiton of the university, and provides a way to
>>understand the points of friction and leverage within a large institution
>>that is durable in many ways. (If not the institution, then at least the
>>model is pliable.)
>>
>>Basically a small team of us have adopted this model to help us think
>>through what strategies will be proactive and effective within our
>>university setting.
>>
>>bb
>>
>>Bill Barowy, Associate Professor,
>>Lesley University, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
>>Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
>>http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
>
>--
>Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
>Lesley University
>29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
>Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
>http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
>_______________________
>"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
> and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
>[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
-- Bill Barowy, Associate Professor Lesley University 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790 Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169 http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html _______________________ "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful." [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:23 PDT