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

[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration

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 Blunden*
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.

    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/
    > 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
    >> 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
    >> 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
    >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging
    the concept of
    >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically
    >> 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"
    >> Andy
    >> *Andy Blunden*
    >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
    >> 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>] On Behalf Of
    Andy Blunden
    >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM
    >>> To: 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/
    >>> 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.
    >>>> 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