[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
Robert Lake
boblake@georgiasouthern.edu
Tue Apr 19 11:10:11 PDT 2016
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
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list