[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory

[Larry Purss]

Andy,

I experienced your question and as a sudden shift in the collaboration. The
exploration of positioning theory was moving in the direction of
questioning the potential of collaboration is an ideal that may be
constrained. The *meaning* of collaboration was being modified and tending
in one direction.
Your reflection on the value of reflection as a *core* value shifted our
engagement with this concept and collaboration *felt* different.
Collaboration went from feeling *suspect* to being a valued term. THIS
phenomena  as felt tendency re-positions the concept of collaboration in
our community.
Andy, you then propose the more appropriate *posing* [positioning] of this
question must be *what TYPE of collaboration* is or is not in the best
interest of this or that student. Which then poses/positions the question
of "What TYPES of collaboration are there?".

You suggest that EACH TYPE has a NORM and the particular ways the students
in this class are *normed* I would pose as expressing a particular VALUE
position.
Therefore *types* AND *posings* AND *positionings* AND *values* AND *norms*
OF collaboration becomes a particular TYPE of storyline [genre??]

You are suggesting the concept *collaborative* is preferable to
*discourse*. I'm assuming you also would prefer *collaboration* to the
concept *dialogue*.

I am curious if others share Andy's preference for the concept
*collaboration* and exploring TYPES OR KINDS of collaboration as a way to
*reveal* [unmask??] the dynamic flow of  *streams* of collaboration
as expanding and extending the understanding of BOTH positioning theory AND
collaboration.

I will send a comment on another post which indicates the origin of Harre's
positioning theory within Vygotsky's cultural historical theory AS a
humanistic storyline




On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Donna, I agree that "Collaboration is incredible complex" but then you add
> "and hard to achieve."
> Rather than taking it that "collaboration" means one very strictly defined
> norm, couldn't we accept that all the phenomena you describe (and more) are
> aspects of collaboration, and that there is more than one norm of
> collaboratin and many more ways of falling short of normativity, of being
> betrayed, exploited, disappointed, misunderstood, etc., etc.? I prefer to
> take every human relationship as an instance of collaboration, that is, I
> take collaboration as the lens through which to understand human
> relationships. But rather than setting up one norm against which every
> human experience turns out to be a dreadful failure, we could see every
> human experience as being a window on the experience of collaboration, the
> expectations, the productivity, the potential for disappointment,
> exploitation, etc.? Is there a better way to understand human relationship?
> Discourse? I think "collaboration" is a superior conceptual framework than
> "discouse."
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>
>
> Donna Kotsopoulos wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the probes, Greg!
>>
>> I think that to answer your question, I may need to ask a series of
>> rhetorical questions.
>>
>> Have you ever worked collaboratively with others where: (a) someone had
>> to agree to disagree?
>> (b) there was a slacker in the group?
>> (c) someone did all the work and all the talking?
>> (d) there was consensus but you wouldn't have called it collaboration?
>> (e) what you hoped to gain from the experience was not up to what you
>> expected?
>>
>> I believe most people, including children, would answer yes to some or
>> all of those questions. This is because there is an endemic deficit to
>> collaboration that has been ignored in the literature in my view. It's been
>> a cup overflowing discourse despite the realities of many people.
>>
>> I still have students collaborate - pretty extensively. My goals and
>> expectations are different now. My approach in sharing the expectations is
>> different now. I address those rhetorical questions head-on and encourage
>> the students to own their own responsibility and to keep others accountable.
>>
>> To some extent collaboration is merely an illusion. While we hope that
>> shared discourse leads to learning, this can't be assumed and what is
>> learned, intended or otherwise, can't be assumed. Similar to teacher
>> directed learning, collaborative learning doesn't work for everyone. If an
>> artifact or a decision is the outcome of collaborations, it is probable
>> that someone in the group perhaps didn't agree or had alternative ideas.
>> Collaboration and consensus are different. Collaboration is incredible
>> complex and hard to achieve. Even as adults, the challenge is formidable -
>> its because there is an illusion that must be perpetuated in order to
>> achieve an end. Ultimately, a united front is presented - despite the fact
>> that there may have been problems.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Donna Kotsopoulos, Ph.D.
>>
>>
>
>