Re: RE: Re(2): chapter 5

From: Diane Hodges (dhodges@ceo.cudenver.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2001 - 07:50:34 PDT


Phillips - i echo judy - this is a brilliant account of how the reality of
the work takes place - i am impressed!!
thanks for sharing,
diane

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>>Judy and diane,
>>
>>We are now into our 4th year and fifth project as users of DWR within a
>>single manufacturing company (although over 3 countries and 7 sites). We
>>constantly encounter the issues that you two are discussing. I can only
>>describe how it feels to us.
>>
>>(1) Our metaphor for own engagement is that we are a tool to be used by
>the
>>people we work with. But we are a tool with 'artificial intelligence',
>which
>>explains why we are not a passive tool. We are explicit about this, and
>we
>>tell them that they are free to 'put the tool-us' down whenever they
>feel we
>>aren't being useful to them. There are tensions in the operation of this
>>metaphor. They are funding us to intervene, and sometimes we don't,
>because
>>nobody explicitly asks us to. Then they complain. And then we have a
>>conversation about the boundaries of our involvement, and together we
>expand
>>into a new kind of relationship.
>>
>>(2) We are explicit about our own motivation for being there. We invite
>them
>>to join with our motivation if they wish, or to disregard it if they
>wish.
>>As Mike has said in a message here today, we would not be there unless
>they
>>had a motivation to change radically. A consequence of that is that
>choices
>>by some of them to engage with our motivation as researchers are
>frequent.
>>
>>(3) On the other hand, as time goes on we become inclined to lose sight
>of
>>both our theory and our method as we become increasingly motivated by the
>>desire to help them work through immediate operational imperatives, and
>also
>>we slip into emotional engagement with them as individuals and in their
>>personal lives. We predicted that these things were likely to happen over
>>time. So we have set up a dual team. There is an 'insider team', which
>works
>>in the field, and there is an 'outsider team' which works only with the
>>insider team. There are meeetings - at least weekly - at which the
>insider
>>team describes its actions within the company, and these descriptions are
>>scrutinised by the outsider team using such questions as 'What has that
>got
>>to do with DWR?' 'In what way was that helping them to learn by
>expanding?'
>>This is necessary for us because, unlike Yrjo's students in Helsinki, we
>are
>>not doing PhD's and we do not have supervisors to perform that role for
>us.
>>
>>(4) The foregoing demonstrates, I hope, that we are NOT leading them to
>the
>>'big contradictions' in a direct sense. We speak when we are spoken to,
>but
>>when we speak we try to speak in the manner of Yrjo's 'fourth umpire'.
>>Occasionally when we are spoken to the words are 'help us, we are
>drowning'.
>>At such times we become directive. But always, afterwards, we ask them to
>>consider why it was that they used us in a role that our contract with
>them
>>specifically excludes. Such dialogues about the secondary contradiction
>of
>>our active intervention is one of the most powerful routes to making
>visible
>>primary contradictions.
>>
>>(5) Over time these people have gained faith in the utility of
>us-as-tool.
>>This makes delicate methodological judgments easier to make. But we still
>>fail often - actively intervening too soon and too heavily, or too late
>and
>>too lightly. But we are also able to use our theory most effectively at
>such
>>times, and it is through engaging with the group we are working with to
>>explore the nature of our own failure, that some of the most productive
>>expansive visibilisations occur.
>>
>>(6) A so far unexplored aspect of the AT's I am describing is that of
>>funding. Our first project was a research project funded by our
>equivalent
>>of your NSF. The firm 'let us in' to them as a case study site. The 2nd
>and
>>3rd. projects were purely contractual consultancy relationships,
>although
>>the project designs LOOKED like DWR academic research designs. The
>current
>>project is 50-50. That is the company has put up half the money and the
>>science agency has put up half the money. We are absolutely clear that
>the
>>funding source profoundly modifies the way in which the system works. We
>>have not yet carefully set out to document and analyse this.
>>

"If you'll excuse me now, I'd like to be alone with my sandwich."
Homer



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:19 PDT