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

[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration



I was hoping you would chime in on this Vera.
Thank-you!
Robert L.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu> wrote:

> In our work on collaboration we found different patterns ranging from
> distributive to integrative. In all four modes we identified complementary
> skills, training, and approaches to tasks  but which  varied in intensity.
> In the closest of collaborations shared values  and commitments emerged.
> While in our view cooperation was most frequently task specific, often a
> result of assignments from above, collaboration leads to some unexpected
> discoveries.
> Conflict can be present, but is effectively negotiated because of the
> practice of dignified interdependence.
> Vera
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Mcverry
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 8:35 AM
> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Robert Lake  Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Social Foundations of Education
Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
Georgia Southern University
P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA  30460
Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be
born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John
Dewey-*Democracy
and Education*,1916, p. 139