[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Mon Apr 18 16:55:11 PDT 2016
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
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list