I like Bill Blanton's comparison of Yrjo's Collective Activity System model and
Lave's Community of Practice model (I know they're not exactly models, but for
the purposes of figuring out how to understand XMCA, that word is good enough
for me). CAS suggests people trying to do something together, however
ineffectively or sucessfully; CoP suggests a continuum from novice to expert in
which the focus is on getting good at, or becoming increasingly central to, an
activity. CAS affords us the opportunity to look at the bumpiness of the ride as
part and parcel of what we're trying to do; CoP suggest that if the ride is
bumpy, something is wrong -- for example, newbies are creating problems.
Of course, these analytic models can BOTH be descriptive of what's going on
here. But they've got different purposes.
Helena Worthen
"William E. Blanton" wrote:
> bb's ideas make sense to BB
>
> I think Yrjo's framework is more useful in thinking about XMCA. XMCA is a
> system, to me, more akin to a collectve. (I think that early on, Yrjo used
> the term "collective activity system" I prefer to think of his node for
> "community" as "collective", after chasing down more material to read as
> the result of recent discussions.
>
> The CoP notion is problematic. Legitimate participation and central
> participation suggest that certain individuals are located either inside or
> outside the dominant ideology. At AERA one year, Lave expressed that the
> idea that central participation was too political and suggested full
> participation. I don't think "full participation" softens the issue, however.
>
> CoP might be to close the the idea of community of learners. A community of
> learners reminds one of tranquility, etc. The idea that participants in a
> system, similarly to how a CoP is often described, can manage conflict,
> disruption, discoordination, and keep the community stabilized, repaired,
> learning and transforming ignores just how dynamic and complex social
> systems are. The CoP framework suggests that normal disruptions are serious
> tears in the binding of the COP and have to be repaired quickly.
>
> Individuals who are viewed as "outside" tend to become marginalized over
> time by the dominant interpreters the (con)-text, ant interpret the
> (con)-text against the ideology.
> The discourse with in a social system can be oppressive, particularly to
> those who are marginalized. The discourse is shaped by those most powerful
> in relation to the dominant ideology, those with more political savvy. The
> discourse can only be changed by those with the courage to challenge it and
> withstand the response, for example the response of Bryson, Hodges, and
> others recently.
>
> The notion of CoP, in a way, hides what Arne Raeithel described as
> "wrestling with ideas and each other." This might have been his idea of
> "practice." Human activity offers the traveler one hell of bumpy ride. A
> CoP might like a quick fix to disequilibrium, whereas collectivity
> encourages its existence. Bakhtin's ideas about heteroglossia, for
> example, seem to fit much better in a collective than a CoP.
>
> What do you think bb?
>
> Bill Blanton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:19 PST