competing theories of IPC

Dear class,

It is almost the last day! You have been such engaged learners. I hope the labor of the class will not outweigh its value as you each move on into your own futures.

We have one more major task to accomplish. You may have noticed that the actual description of the class names a bunch of communication theories which we have not even mentioned. My strategy has been practical, first, and theoretical second. This is a bias I have regarding education, most people simply call it hands-on learning. Now that we have had our hands (minds and hearts) “in it” for the past five and a half weeks, we really must take a peek at the ways different theories propose to make sense of interpersonal communication (this real thing we do with each other). The editor and contributors to our textbook are generally in agreement with each other; as I have mentioned before, there is a bit of a problem with such a total package. Not everyone examines IPC in the same ways, nor seeks similar goals from it, nor even values it with comparable priority in relation to other aspects of human social life.

For instance, a specific theory called The Coordinated Management of Meaning identifies a hierarchy of meaning based on source – what we might call using John Stewart (our textbook author) metaphor of breathing, all the things we inhale. But the meaningfulness of all those inhales are directed by two rules that guide our exhales so that we stay within whatever we think is normal for that interaction.  One of the originators of this theory teaches in the Communication Department at UMass.  Professor Cronen tells an anecdote about a couple receiving couples counseling using the CMM theory: they consistently <i>misunderstood</I> each other but the meaning they made together worked for their relationship!

A more general field of theory that encompasses a range of variations is known as the ethnography of communication. My first theoretical training was in this area, with its emphasis on communication patterns based in/upon some common codes that are shared by/within groups. I was fascinated by the attempt to make sense of “the interrelationships among language, culture, and society” (Bauman and Sherzer, 1975).

These two strands of theory have different roots. The latter privileges code and group, while the former privileges rule and the individual. The distinction between “code” and “rule” occupies plenty of abstract theoretical attention, but the locus of communicative activity as being either the group or the individual is a crucial and determinative matter. Neither theory (nor their advocates) would attribute linear causality to one or the other, but they do privilege one over the other – as do most of us. Be honest! Do you imagine that interpersonal communication begins with you (what you say, what you mean?), or do you believe that interpersonal communication begins with everything everyone else says and means? (Recall the chicken-egg debate! Or was it egg-chicken?!)

We have talked about how communication influences – even creates – identity; and we have also noticed the differences between the relationships that happen with interpersonal communication occurring online (as we have been doing, sometimes called “computer-mediated communication“) and IPC that occurs IRL (in real life), or face-to-face (f2f). We steered away from relational communication with intimates (family, spouse, etc), while focusing on impression management (especially following Goffman).

The theory that has actually guided my decisions about what/how to teach are those that relate to discourse, in particular, I am most drawn to and inspired by critical discourse theory. It is the attention I’ve paid over the years to discourses that contributes to a sense of trust in certain patterns of interaction, my teaching (and communication, in general) is shaped by intuitions concerning which patterns are in play at given junctures of group development. I am rarely “right” in any definitive way, and I am often surprised – which keeps things alive and fascinating. The surprises during this course have been delightful: I am not exaggerating to applaud the ways in which each of you rose to the occasion and challenges of this class. We have created something special together – I hope you are as proud of us as I am!

Don’t be shy about coming back, whenever. I’ll be doing this work for the rest of my life.

 

“a frenzy of nexting” (on conspiracy and structure)

Title Quote: SpiceyNoodleSoup

As I write this, students in their Project Teams are far along in their internal dynamics – my comments today reflect back upon where we were nearly two weeks ago, when the small group plummet began. Inevitably, there was confusion. Nonetheless, in fairly short order the new structure of the class emerged, with students ‘nexting’ from the (traditional school-learning) self-focused individual phase into a collaborative ‘oh we’re really in this together’ team phase.

The first team-building assignment (5:3) asked students to read each other’s summaries of a variety of articles on the topic of “exhaling” and my lecture on “nexting.” The idea was to work with (textbook author) John Stewart’s metaphor of interpersonal communication as breathing: as a live, organic process with the qualities of a chicken/egg mutual dynamic. Which comes first (for instance), the team project assignment or the orientation of students to the fact of a project? I continue to teach in the mode of a reflective practitioner, designing the curriculum as a reflective conversation between me with the knowledge demonstrated by students (singly and in aggregate). The second team-building assignment (6:1/6:2) involved reading John Robison’s book, look me in the eye, and figuring out how to continue (now, in the midst of all this complexity and confusion and comprehension).

Note: for kicks (and

to protect anonymity, and

preserve grammar)

I have made everyone’s gender female.

(!)

First, the mechanics: model responses were provided by DeliverMeSummer (for 5:3) and Shiny Ginger (for 6:1/6:2) yet every student made important and insightful contributions. I cannot mention everything (there is simply too much!), so what follows are what struck me as highlights: either for their power of summary or their significance in pointing to present (current, active) dynamics. A different person would select an alternative set of highlights (some quotes/paraphrases might overlap, but definitely others would not, and the overall picture would have a distinctive quality no matter how much commonality exists).

The Gymnasium (as I’ve adapted her blogname to reflect my sense of her foundational contributions to our class as a group), wrote: “Just when I thought I knew enough to successfully communicate, I realize I can still learn much more…” JohnnieDrama is rather more explicit:

you will see the ulterior motives which Steph decided not to express to us. She needed to butter us up before she bamboozled us with group projects.

Cake problematizes the conspiracy theory, arguing that if I had intentionally misled everyone, then I would be guilty of stereotyping. Or maybe Cake meant all of you would be guilty of stereotyping?! Cake also names the power dynamic: “because Steph controls our grades . . . we did as she told us.” I omitted part of Cake’s statement (notice the ellipses), because I suspect the sheer fact of The Grade carries the most influence. Evidence of this power continues to roll in via email and the in-class logistics thread, with pleas not to be held accountable for teammates’ less than ideal performance, or penalized for missing assignments (every one has a good reason, of course), or because of problems with the technology . . .

What I want to highlight is the obedience factor. (From this you can now extrapolate my general critique of most public education.) Hmmmm. The omitted part of Cake’s critique now becomes relevant: “…and she knows what she’s doing…” Well, thank you (I think!), but let me clarify: I do not “know” in the sense of being able to predict without error but perhaps I do “know” on the basis of training and experience. I know the structure that schooling imposes, and I know the roles students are trained to take. I trust your intelligence, too.

So, I am not surprised that President Makalele (for instance) can summarize,

“We have learned the tie-ins with active listening, nexting and consequentiality and as a result, more and more people are realizing what to look for in respect to these three ideas when reading something they are going to respond to. The first blog posts contained for example, instances of nexting but nobody knew that they were doing it.”

or that OuterBodyBoi can come up with her own metaphor:

“Communication is like fencing. You have to set things up correctly in order to harness true power and effectiveness.”

Well, if I have “misled” you to this point of harnessing true power and effectiveness (!) I guess I am doing my job alright, eh? Masr describes why this online mode of studying interpersonal communication enables such deep learning:

“While online, you have the advantage of being able to read what you’re interlocker says as many times as you please, and than using nexting on your own time.”

There’s a typo in that sentence which is amusing because of its truth: once you begin communicating with someone (or refuse to do so) you are locked into a relationship of some kind. The “kind” is where interpersonal communication allows us latitude: we can move by establishing new positions, finding different orientations, discovering alternative perspectives. On the basis of this interrelational social fact, interpersonal communication theorists can claim that our interlocutors make us who we are.

The parameters of identity are fixed by who we communicate with (and who we don’t), as well as by how we conduct the communication process. Recognizing a pattern of redundancy, for instance, as SABoy did with the limited range for expressing emotion presented by our deeply-americanized textbook, becomes impossible if one is only always communicating within an homogenous group. Consequentially, expressing emotion in “an American way” (if I can make a rather large leap here for the purposes of illustration) makes one “American” more than, for instance, the originary fact of citizenship that is supposedly ascribed at birth. This is one basis for how/why discrimination remains a real problem: identity is ascribed (by others) as much (and sometimes moreso) than the avowals we make for ourselves.

Our surprise guest – thank you John, for being here! – muses:

It’s worth considering whether a person like me – with communication challenges that result from some kind of neurological difference – would have benefited from a class like this, long ago.

In face-to-face versions of this course and others, I have had students with Asperger’s Syndrome. My experience is that they have benefited, and their presence intensifies the learning for everyone. Including me The challenge of mediating the differences that are brought into view by people who do not follow the norms is (in my opinion) the point of interpersonal communication as well as being its disciplinary contribution to human society.

 

valences

I want to introduce a new concept used in sophisticated group relations analysis. Valence is a term borrowed from chemistry, it serves as a metaphor for what we can witness happening relationally among members of a group. “The electrons in the outermost shell are the valence electronsthe electrons on an atom that can be gained or lost in a chemical reaction.”

Bear with me (I’ll draw on the board during class): valence electrons are the ones that establish bonds between atoms – so, just imagine “yourself as an atom.” Like an atom, you have certain (chemical) properties which draw you into relationship with certain other kinds of atoms while repeling you from forming bonds with certain other kinds of atoms. The thing about these attractive and repulsive forces is that they are – to an extent – outside of your control; they are tendencies or proclivities that draw you into particular configurations. We’ve been using the term “role” to label the tendencies and proclivities each of you has demonstrated within our class/group-as-a-whole.

As you have been reflecting on the feedback from your peers, and comparing what they witness of you with what you experience of yourself (remember the Johari Window) – one kind of conclusion you might draw is if you have a valence for reacting to particular circumstances in a group’s dynamic in a characteristic or habitual way. For instance, take the label I gave myself and nearly half of you confirmed in my Johari Window: complex. I am always drawn to the knotty place in a group’s process, to the moment of conflict when differences and disagreement are most salient.

Perfect example? When Mike objected to the Group Assessment Worksheet, arguing that (I paraphrase), “it would have been better if we had done this all along, week-by-week, rather than now, looking back.” I asked what was happening, Aly identified storming….do you remember how we returned to that topic? I brought it up again! Eric would probably argue that if I was a better leader I would know NOT to revisit the sore point, instead I would guide you around it somehow, so that we wouldn’t lose the time and energy of working things out. Instead, I – possibly like a moth to a flame, a dog to a bone? – sensed the percolation of discontent and chose to engage it. Got a bit tweaked in the process, too (!) but, in the end, we made some more progress: some of you decided to embrace the option of completing the final three assignments (well) in order to guarantee yourselves an “A” in the course. The rest of you remain subject to a decision-making process among yourselves: although I would also suggest that you clarified these stakes some more as well. Several proposals are now on the floor, including:

• everyone gets the same grade
• everyone present gets an A
• 50% peer evaluations and 50% teacher evaluations
• certain assignments are credited and others are forgiven

Notice how you orient yourself to this debate, be aware of the role you fill, of the bonds you are being pulled toward (those that feel ‘natural’ or ‘commonsense’) and also notice those ideas or emotions that you reject out of hand. Anything ‘automatic’ at this stage is worth interrogating. Are you being a functional or dysfunctional member of the class/group-as-a-whole right now? What functional roles are you contributing? Are these the ones we need, right now? What is the task that needs to be completed?

 

Informed Consent/Study Team Brainstorm

The first meeting of the Informed Consent/Study Team was a brainstorming session about what to select as the focus for a formal study of the group dynamics that have occurred among class members (students, teacher, and visitors) over the course of this semester. Steph has already been collecting data (via the peer evaluation rating forms) to test an hypothesis about the stages of group development, but that information is insufficient by itself.

We agreed that it is time (now) to pose a study question. If we could wind back the clock, what would be interesting to have paid close attention to from the beginning?

Ideas (in no order, roughly in the sequence in which they came up):

• Having no instructions compared with lots of instructions and how this ties to leadership, for instance, the progress of the group on a given day. (Example: “today given a task and a standard, which increased the rate of success on this day in comparison with other days.”)
• The whole underlying thing of the group dynamic – come to work with Steph – who’s writing on the board…
• Use of Johari Window, Peer Evaluations
• The variation of feedback over time…
• A group of strangers working together…how we view each other over time – perhaps shown in the quality of what people write (as feedback) over time…what they write…how they view their peers.
• Strangers: only a few knew each other prior to this class, now friends and know many
• How do you get together 30 kids….the wiki is an arbitrary task..
• The success rate of fishbowls: “I really like them!” said one team member. They have

Flexible content (how this goes down)

Want to accomplish

A lot of control

positive

Just arguing with each other – no one wanted to

Avoid hurting people’s feelings “weak” = negative

Getting into it…..what do…..problem of agreeing – then uphill since

• Most people hate group work

We do the group work in class

Homework done at home, no dependence

• There are choices, people feel bad about not pulling their own weight
• Are the peer evals biased? Towards the beginning – who chosen to rate? Now friends with them….

 

reminder: After Dachau

Recall the enthusiasm with which the various team’s presented your own and received each other’s wiki-plans.  Energy was high!  Keep it going!

Making the site is not the end, indeed, at the most important level it is only the beginning. We need time to evaluate what we produce or the production itself will have gotten us only halfway toward the goal.

What – from our beginnings as a group – remains?

 

emergence of care (as a group norm) ((?)) (((!)))

I hope the Schein Team on Maintenance Roles has much more than what I’ll share here, and I don’t mean to preempt them, but I do want to comment on the care group members showed to each other yesterday.

First, two of you did remember to watch the clock, so I was able to participate in the candelight vigil “in time” with others around the world. Thank you.

While you were getting organizing in your Schein Teams, I overheard a comment in the Communication Team concerning a layering of stages of group development. This is a sophisticated notion and I was very pleased to hear it! The Team was discussing how to identify different stages, grappling with the fact that things in real life rarely match theoretical models. What <I>are</i> the relationships between observable behaviors (individual and patterned) and determinations of the status of a group-as-a-whole? Each new fishbowl constitutes a new group: they begin “at the beginning” and could get stuck anywhere along the way. As a subgroup of our entire class/group, their ways of communicating, deciding, switching between maintenance and task roles (to name some categories) can reflect the overall group-as-a-whole stage, or serve to work out particular elements on behalf of all of us, or dash us all back into a previous stage where there might be some unfinished business.

Some of the challenges we are now being faced with concern members who have been absent and return. So much occurs in each class session, and we are trying to attend to so many threads and layers, that keeping up through the wiki – while possible (and encouraged!) – is insufficient by itself. Hopefully, everyone is paying attention to the members of your Team who are not present (for whatever reason), and are proactively doing what you can to keep them in the loop.

Did anyone notice anything interesting about how Fishbowl K proceeded in comparison with Fishbowls H and I (Week Six). Several people chuckled when one of the fishbowl “fish” misspoke while trying to say “diverse” (it came out, initially, as “divorce”). A theory of group relations would not ignore the potential “Freudian slip” quality of this faux paux. There was (wasn’t there?) some tension in Fishbowl K. I was fascinated by what seemed to be almost a reversal of dynamics that had occurred before, including the application of similar strategies but with a markedly changed tone. I thought it significant, later in the Fishbowl, when the same “fish” expressed relief at Sara’s statement that she did not think the coursewiki/webpage had to be comprehensive.  If you noticed something, please reply and share your observations and thoughts! For bonus (!), please quote (or paraphrase) from Weber (on the Life Cycle of Groups/Stages of Group Development) to provide a theoretical ground for the meaning you propose to make of your perceptions. Note this information on virtual communities, too.

References:

What to Observe in a Group, by Edgar H. Schein

The Group: A Cycle from Birth to Death by Richard C. Weber. Reading Book for Human Relations Training (Arlington, Va.: National Training Laboratories, 1982), 68-71.

 

Can we articulate the frame(s) emergent in our interaction?

There is now more going on in the talk of our class than I can track alone. The proliferation of assignments, blogposts, fishbowls and all of everyone’s ideas has served to provide an incredibly dense and potentially powerful matrix for us to transform into some kind of cooperative product.

I am pleased that the concept of frames or framing was mentioned in several of the individual proposals. We have some resources already available in the part of the coursewiki that I’ve been developing:

• although we did not use the label (I don’t think?), some elements of our frame as a group was established on the first day of class
• Goffman’s concept of framing was introduced as relevant and applied in Week 4
• also during the 4th class, we began to recognize some of our own emergent norms

My mind has been spinning all week with the conversation we began trying to distinguish among representation, symbolism, and mimesis. Do we want to (re)produce something of art or something of knowledge? Can we attempt both? I saw a hint of art/knowledge in “Let’s Be Serious.” If you read the post with “Busy” playing in the background, there is a juxtaposition of different kinds of knowledge (different modes of knowing?). What emerges from the mix is an interesting kind of timespace, eh? A moment is created for the reader/viewer/listener of the mediated “space” that conveys more than is actually said. Could we do something like that? If we wanted to, what is the “feel” that we might seek to create?  Ch0c0latemilk commented on the favorite songs track that playing during WikiLab #1, “The music is making me want to type fast.”  Do we want to provide a uniform sensory experience for our audience?  If so, why, what, and how?  If not, again, why, what, and how?

I wonder if a next step is to start configuring working design teams? How? (Feel free to make specific recommendations and/or provide organizational criteria.)

 

“Why are you writing sideways?”

1. The moment was beautiful. Was Alex the one who asked? [No, it was Tony. ] I paused, taking the question seriously. He was teasing, but my writing on the board had been more-or-less horizontal up until that point, so why was it different? Well, I explained that having this particular conversation was a deviation from the plan, I had not built time for a digression into the day’s schedule. I was rushing! I also wanted to convey a sense of temporal motion (as in a graph), and (I don’t think I said this at the time), I did not want to say a bunch of stuff the students had already read, so was attempting to say enough (because the dynamic seemed to call for it) but not too much (being boring, repetitive, or on my own personal trip).
2. The question indicated an important shift of authority relations within the group. Not that I am not still “the teacher” in terms of role, but it had become ok to question the authority figure. My behavior is not immune to interrogation. I can imagine the curiosity as a prelude to my inclusion in the fishbowl (“J”), which also represents a kind of leveling-of-the-field across roles, status, and maybe (?) identities. I think we can be optimistic that such a development bodes well for the course project and our continued learning together.
3. Now, just because it happened once does not mean it will always happen, or even that it is always possible! We, within our intragroup dynamics, may go through more storming-type phases, and we might even encounter some inter-group dynamics as we get serious about what to include/exclude from the coursewiki. Also – as I hope to continue to emphasize – every group is different, composed of individuals with unique histories encountering each other at particular times of life. As we are experiencing with each other, creating an environment in which deep collaboration can grow is a serious challenge!
4. Now, the question about writing sideways can also be developed symbolically (in addition to the representational analysis provided above). I actually felt a surge of recognition, as if I was named. I teach “sideways,” probably because I learn sideways, and possibly because I have experienced myself ‘on the sides’ (the boundaries, the margins) much more often than I have felt I was “inside.” (I kinda figger I got “outside” down.) Just to give a wild example, I was reading homework assignments and came across Sedona1’s teaser for her cultural analysis, “Martians inhabit the moon, but that’s just my opinion.” Now, I won’t ‘go there,’ but “Martians” and “moon” could send me off on a trajectory of knowledge acquisition related to stone circles and astronomy (UMass boasts the only sunwheel in North America)…my guess is that most people think about their own things, and only cooperate in terms of topic when there is some reason to do so. John Elder Robison describes this eloquently in his book, Look Me in the Eye.
5. There are many fascinating elements to his story – I’m curious which aspects will intrigue you the most! I found his descriptions of learning how to accomplish successful interpersonal communication compelling. He explains figuring out things that many (most?) people take for granted (and academics spend years trying to understand). For instance,
   

   “…at nine years of age, I had a life-changing revelation.

   I figured out how to talk to other children.

   I suddenly realized that when a kid said, ‘Look at my Tonka truck,’ he expected an answer that made sense in the context of what he had said.” (p. 20)

6. Robison’s tendency was to answer “with whatever I had been thinking.” This is not so different, in my mind, from people who simply say the first thing that comes to mind. Neither response involves any anticipation – there is no forward-in-time quality of considering how the thing one says might lead to a certain kind of outcome, be it as mundane as a polite social interaction or as intense as a long-term relationship. And then, even within the range of possible responses that one might choose among, hoping that they might lead to the outcome you want (or at least one that you dimly perceive or otherwise don’t outright dislike), you can still get it wrong. Remember in the discussion of time and timing (“continuity of experience”), when I was explaining how I thought I had designed a clear pathway from the fishbowl on After Dachau to the next fishbowl on the coursewiki? Aly said, “Steph, sometimes people don’t understand!” Well, ain’t that the truth! Robison describes his interaction with Laurie and his dilemma of responding to the news of the affair or the information about the motorcycle (chapter 20: Logic vs Small Talk). Maybe this is a stretch, but our talking about the “survival guide” had a similar “shape,” don’t you think?
7. Ok, now, to get to our next task. Do you have the distinction down, between a long-term task and the practical decisions that need to be made to actually achieve it, and the immediate tasks that much be attended to as required by the fluid and unpredictable moment-by-moment process? The “decision” by the class to impose structure on a situation that had become untenable (i.e., too confusing for too long) was a short-term solution that may or may not have worked toward an effective outcome. Sometimes this kind of forced decision-making will still lead to results – maybe because it has to, maybe because people are used to it, in the sense of being resigned to certain supposed “truths” . . . we heard some of these, right? “We can never reach consensus in a group this large;” “some people will just have to go along with what’s good for the majority,” and other, similar sentiments. Time constraints and limits are often invoked. The trick is to learn – as a group – when and how to shift back-and-forth between the immediate needs of the membership (maintenance tasks) and the longer-term decisions and actions (“just task me“) that move the group toward its ultimate goal.
8. In class, we will have gone over a bit of evaluation concerning the homework assignment on reporting and applying a critical analysis of cultural terms. Your assignment now is to combine (or juxtapose) the key elements of this post with the important terms of your own and your peer’s individual proposal for the coursewiki (based on the activity of peer review completed in class). The terms generated some interesting stuff! For me, anyway (!) – although I’m not too worried that you’ll be left in the lurch. You are all decent people with fascinating points-of-view.
9. I am particularly intrigued that no one selected the term “hate” or the term “religion.” Does this put them in a category unto themselves? What are the reasons these two terms were unappealing? The popular terms chosen were “hippie,” “love,” and “opinion,” with three each. Do these three terms reflect something about our class or the individual themself? A combination of both? Or neither?
10. Outliers always fascinate me, so beyond the two terms that were not picked at all, only one person from class wrote about the critical cultural analyses of “Arab,” “busy,” “fuck,” “green,” “liberal,” “shame,” and “western.” Receiving two entries each are “bitch,” “queer,” and “wicked.”
11. A few of you engaged the critical element of the assignment in your application of the analyses to our group dynamics, but I don’t recall anyone mentioning the cultural element? These are aspects of the large social forces that “act” upon any group; to be proficient in perceiving group dynamics, the presence of what we label culture, origin, history, and identity (to list some of the possibilities) must be considered. Whether or not the particularities of what composes the example or instance of, say, identity, is of significance to the group is a matter of the fluid unfolding of interaction in space, through time.
12. I wonder what came to mind when you read the list for the first time, and then when you (in your Teams) divvied up the choices? Were you already being critical, e.g., aware that this is a list of terms generated by US Americans (as far as I know) about terms that they understand are deeply cultural? With that framework in mind (yes, as in framing), I wonder at the spread of selection and relative ranking we see with the choices that were made. Twenty-two of 28 (enrolled) students is 78% of the class, not bad for getting a group-as-a-whole “measurement.” The words you were required to select among were generated by UMass undergrads last fall (2008), so they come from (if you will) “your generation,” with the added quality of being chosen by people who have actually traveled abroad: in other words, they have gained a window on us (as “Americans”) because they have been outside the house and experienced a sample of how others perceive us.
13. Working with these small numbers (not “reliable” in terms of generalizing to other groups, but a strong indication of what’s happening among our particular group), and assuming some representational power on the basis of simple interest:
14. 40% of the energy of the class might be engaged with
    • matters of opinion concerning love and hippiedom?
    • questions of loving our own opinions and being hip enough to share them?
    • resisting the challenges of loving and questioning authority (as hippies are renowned for doing?)
15. Meanwhile, six other members of the class (27%) converged on an alternative “set” of terms:
    • the bitches and queers are wicked?
    • isn’t it queer that there are wicked bitches among us?
    • this queer class is wicked bitchin! (?)
16. Finally, all those single votes represent a bloc of their own, seven single entries aggregated is 32% of the students completing this activity. The list references (or points toward, i.e., indexes) identity, nationality, sexuality, emotions, and politics.
17. Now, do we make some kind of meaningfulness of this tripartite subdivision of the class or choose to discard the information because of the random nature by which it came about? There is randomness in these results, right? Each of you gravitated (presumably) to a term you wanted to write about, even if you did not get your first choice…correct? Where did that desire come from? Can we simply eliminate the possibility that some force in the group – some element of our dynamics – inspired you, somehow, to take up that particular term?
18. Let’s take the unaligned group first. Are there relationships among the terms that were only picked once? I know (again) that only random occurrence gave us “shame” as the first term that was posted, but I wonder . . . are we (at least some of us?) experiencing some shame because of some of the things that are being learned in this course? I’m also interested in the polarization between “Arab” and “western.” Ontherecliner wrote, “the notion of a “westerner” is a way to separate people. It is a way to say things that are not {a]like…” and Apoulos got me thinking about what we are willing to say about the cultural, national, ethnic, and religious differences among us. Another intriguing juxtaposition that could be connected to the dynamics of what words we use and their implications are the entries on “green” and “fuck.” We all know fuck is a loaded term whose use might offend someone, but who is aware that the use of “green” in another context might led to “a bullet in the head“? Fuck could also be related to “busy.” Febreezethesituation contributes the most creative response to this assignment. Now, you’ve gotta decide if you discern the same logic that I do (!), but check this out: “western” as a way to separate, willingness to say things (especially about identities), being green (environmental, also (gasp!) a rookie), and addressing sex openly = liberal.
19. Moving on to the middle group, with two entries each, let’s pose another hypothesis for what might be going on . . . more sex, for one thing, or at least something strange. Hippo86 offers a critique of political correctness, and Abccccc describes challenges of perception. Both students are dealing with issues regarding the naming of sexual orientation. Gender elicits a similar amount of attention. There seems to be a debate about what it means to be called a bitch – or maybe I am trying to make it a debate?(!) Funinsun seems to imply that “being a bitch” is bad, period. Summer22 got out of the gate right behind “shame,” with a posting that exposes some of the risks of engagement with the label’s actual usage. Is it surprising that wicked would eventually make an appearance?! Thumpasorus gets us thinking about the worthiness of going through the labor of actually hashing out the range of meanings for any given term. Bradytomoss makes an intriguing distinction between uses of “wicked” to label someone else’s behavior (e.g., ‘you bad sinner, you’) and uses of ‘wicked’ to express a state-of-being or perception (although I have to admit I am not sure if Thumpasorus meant to suggest that New Englander’s stupidity is wicked good or wicked bad).
20. Finally, now, we come to the largest “mass” of students, three each on – am I wrong?!? – the groovy terms of love, opinion, and hippies. Multiple meanings of the term came up right away, and some synonyms are provided by aligirl22. Samesies wonders if the term will appear in our group’s dynamic, and ch0c0latemilk notices how carefully people are “editing our thoughts in order to make sure we communicate with each other in an ‘acceptable’ way.” This caution seems like it could be linked with the posts concerning the expression of opinion, eh? Ehanft articulates the difference between ‘opinion’ and ‘fact,’ suggesting we might need to formalize (?) some way of ranking the ideas people offer. Princess3 questions the prevalence of opinion-offering in our group to date. For me, this raises the question of how functional opinion-giving is at this point in our group’s development? Perhaps a sharper question is, at what moment does opinion-giving serve the group, and at what moments (or, under what circumstances) does opinion-giving serve a personal need at the expense of the group? Finally, I am absolutely intrigued that Sedona1 suggests that there is a root meaning of “opinion” based in the institution of law. Talk about a powerful frame! Are we justified in wallowing around in the uncertainty of opinion (!) because the practice of giving opinions is validated (i.e. ritualized) by our very legal system?
21. Not quite last, and certainly not least, are the entries on hippies. Churchofgoogle makes the crucial point that we often do not notice terms because they are used so casually. The imagery of “wicked” is invoked by the posting title, Damn Hippies. Brucebanner87 remarks on how often the term is in use around campus, and I noticed a subtle distancing of this term from the discourse within our group. Are we afraid of this term? Don’t want to be associated with it? Freshkicks seems, alternatively, to celebrate the term: is it cool to be “she pea”?
22. That does complete an introductory look at the terms selected and applied to our group dynamic from the model of a critical, cultural analysis. However, I do want to remind us of the two missing pieces: the overlooking terms of “hate” and “religion.” Are these concepts and their effects “outside” of our group? Irrelevant? Unimportant? It is up to you, each of you, to make some meaningfulness of all this information. I’ve collected and organized an extensive sample of our group’s discourse – the way we talk with each other, within the boundaries of the course topic (“Group Dynamics”), the structured assignments, and our fluid process of group development. Reading about your peers thinking on these topics “ought” (in my mind!) inform the ways you/we design the final coursewiki project. I hope you will reflect, here, on ways to mold the individual proposals (linked from replies to “Progress! a “Working Definition“) into a coherent and sensible group endeavor.

 

Progress! a “Working Definition”

We had a very interesting class last night, listening to a range of favored songs, thinking hard about authority relations and decision-making, and – believe it or not?!? – clarifying a scope for the coursewiki project. (Yes, I did – just now as I type! – change the operational label from “gist” to “scope” – please engage the diction vigorously if you experence a reaction to it.)

Fishbowl J was the first such group nominated by peers (instead of being composed on a more-or-less volunteer basis; “more-or-less” because participation in one of two/three fishbowls has usually been required).

The assigned task of Fishbowl J was to address “the important decisions to make today, now?” We came up with (in chronological sequence):

1. What % of a majority vote is sufficient?
2. Can we decide on the gist?
3. Can we decide on/about the Peer Evaluations?
4. Can we decide the idea of the coursewiki without deciding on its actual title?
5. Who is the intended audience of the coursewiki project?

In addition, a process for achieving consensus on the coursewiki project was proposed as an alternative to majority-minority voting.

Most of our energy was spent on coming up with “a working definition” for two subsequent fishbowl groups to review/revise. Once the next fishbowl group has achieved consensus, the working definition can be passed on to a third (last?) fishbowl group: this way everyone has the chance to participate in a consensus-building effort within a small group of no more than eight people.

I volunteered to write this first attempt at a “working definition” with the understanding that my fellow fish (!) will add/revise/correct/challenge (!) etcetera if the wording does not seem quite right. We generated a bunch of phrases during our talk which I am putting together for the first time here.

First, we did agree that there is no need to decide the title of the site/project now, identifying that the label (language, diction) of “survival guide” has been a barrier in the way of the actual broad, participatory idea which we all support.

That “idea” (scope) involves:

• “the best of _________________ ” (your/our experiences of UMass and surrounding area)
• is centered on/grounded in “our experiences”
• involves some kind of mix between “helping others” and “benefitting ourselves”
• is intended to demonstrate (diction?) how to “make the most of your college career”
• could be framed as a “guide”

The audience is described as “the UMass Community” – meaning, roughly, a kind of “inward-looking site” from “our common identity” (based on being students at UMass?) to others of “the same identity.” (I think we need to work on clarifying this some more!)

Some ideas we’re either still exploring or brainstorming for individual components of the project includes offering info on “things to do around” the UMass area, that we might like to provide “something for everyone by everyone,” and ultimately (maybe) create the kind of site “where people want to go…”

Some debate ensued regarding whether the site should be a repository of things we already know and/or have experienced (i.e., past-focused), or be used “to inform ourselves of other [new] things” (i.e., present-focused). We asked if we want to “gain other audiences” besides ourselves?  This question is still open. Quality criteria (for the endproduct) came up once, regarding how “professional” the site would look. In comparison with previous coursewiki projects, for instance, only What’s Goin’ On? had an attractive or compelling enough appearance for one member of the fishbowl to imagine spending time there.

Some bit of discussion occurred over whether or not to include a calendar (which would require updating) or aim to produce a static, permanent product. There was an uncontested suggestion to leave this up to individuals to decide in terms of their own contributions to the site. We also cleared up the homework assignment: come up with an idea (a proposal) for what you want to bring to the coursewiki within the framework of the working definition provided here. The idea of using a range of media (including video) is encouraged.

We did not pursue any Peer Evaluation decisions beyond airing some concerns about who to evaluate (members of the same Schein Team and/or people in the fishbowls?) and a general question about what knowledge is necessary to provide a fair evaluation. For instance, some people may be talkative in class but are not doing the behind-the-scenes work in their teams…

So…. what happens next (in this thread) are two kinds of posts:

1. the assigned homework in which everyone posts a link to the details of your individual proposal (posted in your own Weblog), and
2. commentary/dialogue on the working definition itself. (Feel free to weigh in on any of the other topics covered in Fishbowl J, if you wish.)

When we reconvene in class after spring break (be safe and have fun!), we will call for nominations for participants in Fishbowl K (no repeats from “J”) and let them have their go at building consensus.  If time permits (along with whatever activities I come up with for the day’s lesson plan), Fishbowl L (composed of everyone  left) will occur.  (FYI – as I type this I am already thinking to hold Fishbowl L until a week later, but let’s see how things develop, ok?  Partially this will depend on who is present/absent – the point is to make sure everyone in class participates in one of these three crucial fishbowls, right?)

Alright then.   Here we go . . . !

 

Facebook (subject of research)

Rachel posted this onto Facebook (!), from the NYTimes:

On Facebook, Scholars Link Up With Data