[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration

[Greg Mcverry]

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> 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> 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] On Behalf Of Lplarry
> >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM
> >> To: Andy Blunden <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
> 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/
> >> 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] 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
>