Elizabeth,
Yours is certainly a study after my own heart. I'm over here at UNI
looking at enculturation of new folks into work groups. My dissertation
was concrete workers, but now I mess around with IS groups....my
colleagues are all in MIS.
I hadn't really thought about the issues in terms of authority as a
freestanding influence. Rather, I cast the dynamics in terms of
rhetorical culture. Your computer (dare I say nerd?) is making his bid
to enter a new rhetorical culture; his task competence leads the group
to accept him in spite of his rhetorical incompetence. I'd see both the
newcomer and the old-timers as being in a position of negotiated
compromise: the culture will change if he is accepted, since it will
need to allow him some rhetorical standing based on his own norms. On
the other hand, he might need to adopt some of their norms in order to
gain even a minimal standing in their "public sphere." What I would
want to know is whether he can be "accepted" into the group in some sort
of a non-rhetorical role. That is, can he function in some ways without
actually having the standing to engage in the group's rhetorical (e.g.
decision-making) activities? He is tolerated at faculty meetings, for
instance, but his 'voice' is ignored? If this is what you mean by lack
of authority, it seems to be a straightforward problem of rhetorical
credibility.
As for theorists, I call my work rhetorical criticism and rely more on
Celeste Condit, Dwight Conquergood and Raymie McKerrow...probably not
too helpful for your perspective.
I do want to know the title and publisher of Dias' book though; I have
an "in press" citation floating around and haven't been able to find the
book.
Dale Cyphert
Elizabeth A Wardle wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
> Since I am a first-time poster, let me introduce myself. I am a PhD student
> in Rhetoric and Professional Communication at Iowa State University in
> Ames, Iowa. I am studying this semester with David Russell and currently
> working on an activity theory paper for his course. He suggested that when
> I felt coherent enough about my work I send you all an email explaining it
> and asking for feedback. Today I feel especially coherent, so I thought I'd
> give it a try. :)
>
> I am currently studying workplace enculturation, specifically enculturation
> into non-apprenticeship workplaces. What I am most interested in at the
> moment is how new workers gain/retain/negotiate authority within their new
> communities of practice. I rely heavily on Bourdieu for much of my
> understanding of authority: some authority must be bestowed by an
> institution (although not necessarily a literal one), but some authority
> also depends on the neophyte worker's ability to successfully cash out
> his/her cultural capital (skills, knowledge, expertise, what have you).
>
> My current research subject is an interesting case. He has not succeeded in
> mastering the codes and conventions of his new community, despite the fact
> that he was (eventually) given some mentors to lead him through the maze of
> unwritten rules. At times my subject seems to actually intentionally
> disregard community conventions. The result has been a loss of authority
> for him, in the eyes of his community. However, he's keeping (and probably
> will keep) his job because he is a computer expert: he has some cultural
> capital that is in high demand and he would be difficult to replace. So on
> he goes, flouting the community's conventions governing use of tools and
> division of labor--yet he remains in his position. My fledgling theory
> about this is that computer experts see computers as both the tool and the
> object. Then they go work in communities of practice that see computers
> only as a tool. My computer expert has never learned to understand or value
> the objects of his new activity system (teaching and research) and he
> probably never will. In fact, I would argue that he doesn't even see
> himself as a part of their activity system. I'm wondering if this is a
> trait of computer administrators in general--and something that might
> deserve further study.
>
> My question for you all is this: can you think offhand of any
> books/articles that are must-reads for me? As I said, Bourdieu is my
> favorite theorist of the moment, closely followed by Vygotsky and AT in
> general. I've also found Patrick Dias' new book helpful. I'm still
> struggling with authority, though. It's tricky and slippery, yet is seems
> to me that understanding how it works is essential to understanding why/how
> enculturation works or doesn't work. Then how dynamics authority is
> impacting/being impacted by technology. If you can think of any reading on
> the subject you'd recommend, I'd love to hear about it. And if any of the
> rest of you are studying issues of workplace enculturation, I'd love to
> talk with you, on or off the list.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Elizabeth
> ------------------------------
> Elizabeth A. Wardle <ewardle@iastate.edu>
> Doctoral Program in Rhetoric & Professional Communication
> Iowa State University of Science & Technology
> http://www.stuorg.iastate.edu/phorum/
> www.public.iastate.edu/~ewardle
>
> "What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."
> --Adolf Hitler
-- Dale Cyphert, Ph.D. Business Communication Program Coordinator __________________________________________ College of Business Administration University of Northern Iowa 1227 W. 27th Street Cedar Falls, IA 50613 (319) 273-6150 dale.cyphert@uni.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:15 PDT