I have finished another section of my dissertation. This section deals with the politics that affect workplace collaboration, especially the development of workplace knowledge and access to workplace resources during collaborative writing processes.
Knowledge Embedded within the Project Power Structure
While professional, group, and departmental expertise and knowledge appears to be the result of embedded practices that group members may not be aware of, the knowledge embedded with the power structures of the project appeared to be more explicit, tangible, and intentional. The power structure consists of expectations by those who have organizational power, those within the group who have expert power (as opposed to authority), and stakeholders within the profession and the fancying agency and the perceived authority of the official hierarchy within the group and departments. Some of the study participants, such as Robert and Olivia, perceived power as equal to the hierarchy laid out by official organizational charts and job titles. Others, such as Sam and Paul, perceived those in power as those that were able to influence work, decisions, and group members based on access to resources, expertise, and organizational placement. This second perception of power is referred to as expert power, in which a person (or people) have power that is acknowledged by peers and those in positions of authority by virtue of being able to contribute, not solely because they have been granted power by those in positions of authority (Engleberg & Wynn, 2007; Galanes & Adams, 2007).
In the study, individual members felt empowered or powerless dependent upon their perceptions of how their ideas, contributions, and expertise are valued. The greater empowered they felt, the greater sense of ownership they felt towards their work. For example, Helen discussed how they rewrote the curriculum after the curriculum that was handed them to use for stand-up training was deemed insufficient. “But all of this, in my opinion, has been driven by the stand up curriculum that we’ve been writing that has changed this innumerable times…[later]…Like I said, we were looking at the old curriculum, what their outline was, what their content was, how this field delivers services, you know. And we totally restructured it.” Notice how she distinguishes between the two curriculums: she uses the pronoun of their when referring to the curriculum that was originally imposed on the group and uses the pronoun we when referring to the revised curriculum. This implies a greater level of ownership that they were permitted to exercise by developing their own (the stand up training department in the project group) curriculum.
On the other hand, formats, work processes, and visions imposed on the group or individual group members from the authorities within the perceived power structure often resulted in a distancing from the work and a lack of personal or group ownership of the product. An example of this was the quarterly report. Helen’s description of her process for the writing the quarterly report was similar to the other group members:
It has the same format every quarter. I mean it’s…it’s…you know, there is a…[pause]…outline that… that’s followed and it’s a report on each segment of…the project. Classroom training, technical assistance, elearning progress. The video people get reported in on the IT stuff. It’s…I mean, I’ll be honest with you. I contribute my part and I’ve never read anyb…I’ve never read a quarterly report. (Helen, interview 2).
There was a certain amount of apathy towards the quarterly report in which each group member wrote a contribution, but Robert was the owner of the final report. Many of the group members, like Helen, never read the final version. As Helen implies, the format was imposed on the group members from the sponsor (through an outline of required information in the project contract) and the organizational hierarchy. The hierarchy imposed the report format through a series of approvals required before the final report was sent to the sponsor.
One common problem with the collaborative process that the group had was that the work did not always align with the expectations of those that had authority within the power structure at various levels in the organization and project. This happened on the individual, group, departmental, organizational and professional levels. One way conflict was resolved was for those who perceived themselves as powerless in a given workplace circumstance to distance themselves from their work, giving ownership to those that they perceived as having authority. They also withheld their expertise, tacit knowledge, skills, and identifiable knowledge that they did perceived those within the power structure did not value. This was what members of the elearning department did after the new Project Director took over.
Originally, the content objects were designed to be stand alone related lessons. Project members from the elearning department worked closely with those in the stand-up training department to create a shared vision of the content objects. However, there was a different project vision between the group and the organizational hierarchy. This resulted in some members leaving the organization (thus withholding their expertise from the organization), while the remaining members simply coded the content rather than adding creative elements and other expertise on online learning to the finished product. In analyzing the supporting project documents, documents created after the new Project Director took over were more uniform between departments than those created before the new Project Director arrived.
If, however, the group members had a greater sense of ownership towards their work, they were more likely to circumvent or ignore the preferences of those in authority. This is what happened in the planning stages of the Top Ten/ Subway document. The project group were using basecamp to allow access to the document’s various drafts and solicit feedback. The Project Director approved a draft and ordered the group to discontinue further discussion on the document. However, the project group continued discussions using an alternative space within basecamp in order to circumvent the notice of the Project Director. This document had value for the group, so the group continued to develop it. The document had such value, in fact, that numerous group members claimed ownership of the final subway map and its content.
From an ethnomethodological perspective, there was a reciprocal relationship between the group and those outside of the organization, especially the funding agency, the trainees, and the profession. The power structure, in fact, was perceived differently by individual group members at different stages of the project, for different project tasks, different work environments, and different levels of access to resources. In other words, the perceived power structure was situated and dynamic. Those perceived as having power over the group and the project were solicited for feedback and approval for activities that impacted the group’s work processes, formats and products. This feedback was then used to create group work norms which could impact the group, the departments, or even the organization. If the feedback from those within the perceived power structure was ignored, group members feared that resources would be withheld and ownership may be taken away. While there may not be explicit threats or repercussions, group members would react to the potential threat they perceived from those in positions of authorities in the power structure.
For example, Ronda spoke about trying to access resources for video production, which those in authority did not value. They would use the excuse that there was no money for video, and yet video was cheaper than other resources they would recommend.
In this case, Ronda believed that those with authority within the power structure did not want to use video, so they would withhold resources to create video. Paul, also spoke of the effect that the Project Director’s potential feedback and approval had on his workplace writing process:
I’m, like, well, how irritated is the Director going to be? Will seeing these….you know, which to me, I mean certainly I have put a lot of time and effort into…but, you know, I see them as rough draft kinds of things. And usually you want the…the, you know, the top leadership person who is looking at these things to have just final say and you really want to have, um, really high quality products go to them before…You know, really have things really worked on strongly before they go to basically, you know, like an executive level person for final approval. (Paul, interview 1).
Those with authority within the power structure used funding, access to resources (including interdepartmental expertise), training, standards, formats, and communication tools (basecamp, website, word processing templates) to maintain approved organizational culture, hierarchy, and relationships that created the power structure. Throughout the study, the hierarchy of the power structure shifted from the group to the stand-up training department and from the external clients and healthcare profession to the funding agency and organization. As a result, knowledge and expertise that was valued shifted resulting in group members constantly trying to identify their place within the power structure. As the importance of their knowledge and expertise was repositioned, their perceived ownership of the project was also repositioned. This was especially evident within the elearning department in which they perceived their expertise to be increasingly undervalued by the organizational hierarchy. They therefore felt less and less ownership for the final products that the elearning department was creating for the project.
While those in positions of authority used resources to control the work processes and enforce the use of power structure formats, others in the group were able to improve their place within the power structure by knowing how to access resources, develop a network of expertise, and disseminate or deliver knowledge that was perceived as valuable within a network of knowledge.
As Paul explains it, expertise is held outside of the group and group members. Accessing the knowledge that the experts have means the group and its members needed to understand where that knowledge might be, what form the knowledge might take, how the network can be developed and accessed, the key players to accessing the network, and how to overcome barriers to creating and accessing networks within and outside of the project power structure. The development of these knowledge networks may be dependent upon an understanding of the political nature of the power structure, social networking skills, cultural (organizational, professional, and departmental cultures) awareness, and the ability to link ideas, information and resources across a social system or network.
There were two approaches study participants used to access knowledge networks within the power structure:
1. Identify valued information within the power structure and present that knowledge for use by those in authority. In this strategy, information would be complied, structured, and sequenced using a format those within the power structure expected. In presenting the information using the power structure’s format, members supported the type of knowledge and expertise that the power structure valued, thus reinforcing the perceived value of the knowledge and expertise for those who had legitimate power. Information was often unfiltered and analysis was conducted by those perceived to have power. This strategy used knowledge that took an identifiable form such as reports, design plans, meeting minutes, and written feedback.
2. Filter, analyze, and highlight information to present a point of view that may or may not be aligned with the power structure. This information then would be used to try to change culture (organizational, departmental, professional), create a new mental model, develop shared cognition, change the project vision or processes, or realign some aspect(s) of the project perception. This strategy often used more tacit and less identifiable knowledge, relying on social and knowledge networks.
The first strategy was often used when there was a product in which the group or a group member did not feel a strong sense of ownership, the group or group member felt powerless within the power structure, and/or there was a group or group member perception of alignment of project goals and vision(s) with those who posed authority within the power structure.
Olivia, Paul, and Robert used this strategy. Olivia was influenced by her supervisor who she perceived had authority over her work. She often commented on how it was not her place to make decisions on her work, but rather her supervisor’s, especially after her department was newly absorbed into the training organization. Robert perceived that he was part of the power structure within the organization and as such, it was necessary for him to maintain the formats and processes that he and others he perceived as having authority developed. Paul’s work was often influenced by feedback from those he identified as having legitimate authority with the group, organization, and profession. Using the power structure as a framework, he developed a network of social contacts and sources of information that he could access when those he perceived as having authority needed to access knowledge they deemed as valuable. Paul himself tried to maintain a neutral perception of the information, expertise and resources he had access to within his knowledge network, doing very little filtering. Instead, he would use different highlighting standards dependent upon his analysis of what those within the power structure valued as knowledge for a given situation. In other words, he would find information and expertise that would support the power structure’s view point, ignoring information and expertise that might refute the goals and vision of those with perceived power.
The second strategy was often used by those who felt a strong sense of agency or ownership over their work and/or perceived there was a misalignment of goals, vision, or work processes between themselves, the group, or those within the power structure. The use of this strategy had the potential of creating conflict. Helen and Ronda often used this approach. They would filter or withhold information or work processes to convince those within the power structure towards a certain action, decision, or approach.
Showing posts with label organizational politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organizational politics. Show all posts
Monday, February 21, 2011
Friday, December 11, 2009
Dissertation: Group defining knowledge verbally
In looking at how the participants defined four terms, knowledge, know-how, content, and design, there was an insight into their similarities and differences in their perceptions of knowledge and the knowledge creating process.
Knowledge
They defined the term “knowledge” differently. There appeared to be three different groups: those that defined knowledge as something measurable or tangible (“information”, “content”, “things that you know”), those that had difficulty defining knowledge, and those that defined knowledge as something more intangible (“with knowledge, I know how to behave in any particular situation”, “shared meaning”). Surprisingly, those that identified knowledge as something tangible felt that they were within the organization and group’s powerstructure. They also were part of the traditional training group, which had a greater influence on the project according to the second round of interviews, 3 months later.
On the other hand, those that defined knowledge as something more intangible, were the most disgruntled with the project 3 months later. In fact, one of the group members left the organization before the second interview. The two that had difficulty defining knowledge, also felt a disconnect from the group and organization throughout the project. In fact, they felt a stronger connection to their profession or department, feeling as if they were outside of the group. They also tended to be much more careful with the answers they gave during their interviews.
This would indicate that knowledge workers need to be aligned with the epistemologies of their organizations. When there are different epistemologies within an organization, for example between departments, than there might be tension within distributed groups. This tension was not obvious in the routine collaborative written project (quarterly report) in which the format and even content was dictated from outside of the organization. However, in the creation of the document that required more group interaction and ownership, the differences in epistemologies were evident.
In analyzing the documents, therefore, it is important that I look at the changes to the most important document underwent. It is also important to look at the alignment of these changes, the interpretation of these documents by the individuals in relation to the perceived value by the organization, and the perception of what this document represented to the individual, group, and organization.
Content
Unlike knowledge, the definition of content was consistent throughout the group. In most of the definitions, “information” was included. In many cases, some description of a tangible product was included. This included, “a variety of media”, “source material”, “images”, “what goes in a page”, “curriculum”, and “whatever the written material is.” Additionally, most participants included skills and knowledge or the word “know” in their definitions. In many cases, the definition also included how content was applied.
Interestingly, however, is that while content was consistently defined, and often used interchangeably with knowledge, knowledge was not consistently defined. Therefore, we can define “content” as a tangible subset of “knowledge”. While there might be differences as to what content is valuable or needed, the idea of what content is within a group does not seem to differ. This makes me wonder: if there is a difference in epistemology which leads to a breakdown in the group knowledge creation process, it might help to use a strategy in which acceptable “content” is defined and negotiated at the individual, group, and organizational level. In other words, the “what” will be defined.
Know-How
Many of the definitions were similar for know how. Often skill and process, “how to use” and experience were used. Those who defined knowledge as something that was possessed also implied that know-how was “possessed.”
While each defined know how differently, they all seemed to share a common understanding that know how was not easily measured, had to do with a process or skill which helped to create know-how, and was informal learning. It also seemed that many of the definitions included how know-how was applied. Some of these included:
“Application of both what to do and knowing how to use it, mainly in an efficient way.” (R.).
“I guess I know…I’m going to use as…I know the know-hows of web development, know-hows of graphic design.” (D.)
“…, know how get things done even if it’s delegating.” (S.)
“I guess that’s knowledge that translates….into an ability to do something.” (P.)
“…intuitive gut navigation.” (H.)
While content seemed static, know-how seemed more action oriented. Know-how also appears to be an individual concept. When defining know-how, the participants tended to use the first person. No one used a collective pronoun in their definitions.
This brings up questions as to the role of “know-how” in the group collaborative process. If it is considered an individual attribute, can a group have “know-how”? Is there such a thing as collective “know-how”? Would it be developed or used in the same way as individual know how?
Design
After the first series of interviews, I noticed that many of the participants used the term “design”, but each in a slightly different way. As a result, a definition of design was included in the second interview. In fact, the definition of design had very little in common from speaker to speaker. In addition, it seemed the most difficult term for the participants to define, most having long pauses before they answered.
Those from the training department tended to perceive design as a definitive construct using terms such as “strategies”,“content”, “framework”, and “curriculum.” Design was a more situated term to define for those in the elearning department, grounded in the creative and meaning making process. For example, “Design is the…planful…elegance and pattern…which gives…definition and meaning.” (R.). Not only is there some situated aspect to design, but those in the elearning department identify a sense of agency in their definitions.
Such a divergence in the understanding of what “design” is could lead to difference in understanding during the creation of a collaborative document, especially when there is no structure to the document, such as the second document studied. The first writing project, using a clearly defined structure was, “Well, the quarterly report’s always a by-product of individual contributions.” (R., group interview). On the other hand, the second collaborative project studied was a document created by the group to help identify the various aspects of the elearning project. In discussing this document in a group interview, the difficulty in creating an agreed upon product was obvious:
R: Well, what formally…I think the … for the classroom trainers, they have a document. Module 1 contains X number of elements. Module 2 contains X number of elements. Eh…for me, there’s a sort of isomorphic mapping of those content elements onto a schema that reflects those same strains and tho…and that same order. Uh…And I’ll give you a copy of this map which talks about where those elements are…
Later:
P: There’s a certain way to do that in the classroom. So, um… I think that’s…I don’t know if you can…say right now what your product is going to be. It’s going to be some type of elearning product.
R: Right. I mean…
P: But what it’s going to look like and how it’s…how it’s going to work is not…really isn’t there yet.
R: It isn’t really there... I mean, we have an idea…
Those in the training department seem to perceive design in what Buchanan (1992) refers to as the “categories” of design: “Categories have fixed meanings that are accepted within the framework of a theory or a philosophy, and serve as the basis for analyzing what already exist (p. 12).” The elearning department looks at the possibilities of design, however. This is what Buchanan refers to as “placement” of design. “Placements have boundaries to shape and constrain meaning, but are not rigidly fixed and determinate. The boundary of a placement gives a context or orientation to thinking, but the application to a specific situation can generate a new perception of that situation and, hence, a new possibility to be tested. Therefore, placements are sources of new ideas and possibilities when applied to problems in concrete circumstances (p. 13).”
It appears that coming to the collaborative writing process from these two different approaches affects the knowledge creation and collaborative process.
Conclusion
In this project, it would appear that the source of conflict over epistemology was not a shared understanding of what content was (information, tangible) or know-how (intangible), but rather a shared understanding of design (what is as opposed to what can be created). This appears to be an overlooked aspect of the collaborative writing process.
Reference:
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, Vol. 8, No. 2 Accessed: 11/12/2009
Knowledge
They defined the term “knowledge” differently. There appeared to be three different groups: those that defined knowledge as something measurable or tangible (“information”, “content”, “things that you know”), those that had difficulty defining knowledge, and those that defined knowledge as something more intangible (“with knowledge, I know how to behave in any particular situation”, “shared meaning”). Surprisingly, those that identified knowledge as something tangible felt that they were within the organization and group’s powerstructure. They also were part of the traditional training group, which had a greater influence on the project according to the second round of interviews, 3 months later.
On the other hand, those that defined knowledge as something more intangible, were the most disgruntled with the project 3 months later. In fact, one of the group members left the organization before the second interview. The two that had difficulty defining knowledge, also felt a disconnect from the group and organization throughout the project. In fact, they felt a stronger connection to their profession or department, feeling as if they were outside of the group. They also tended to be much more careful with the answers they gave during their interviews.
This would indicate that knowledge workers need to be aligned with the epistemologies of their organizations. When there are different epistemologies within an organization, for example between departments, than there might be tension within distributed groups. This tension was not obvious in the routine collaborative written project (quarterly report) in which the format and even content was dictated from outside of the organization. However, in the creation of the document that required more group interaction and ownership, the differences in epistemologies were evident.
In analyzing the documents, therefore, it is important that I look at the changes to the most important document underwent. It is also important to look at the alignment of these changes, the interpretation of these documents by the individuals in relation to the perceived value by the organization, and the perception of what this document represented to the individual, group, and organization.
Content
Unlike knowledge, the definition of content was consistent throughout the group. In most of the definitions, “information” was included. In many cases, some description of a tangible product was included. This included, “a variety of media”, “source material”, “images”, “what goes in a page”, “curriculum”, and “whatever the written material is.” Additionally, most participants included skills and knowledge or the word “know” in their definitions. In many cases, the definition also included how content was applied.
Interestingly, however, is that while content was consistently defined, and often used interchangeably with knowledge, knowledge was not consistently defined. Therefore, we can define “content” as a tangible subset of “knowledge”. While there might be differences as to what content is valuable or needed, the idea of what content is within a group does not seem to differ. This makes me wonder: if there is a difference in epistemology which leads to a breakdown in the group knowledge creation process, it might help to use a strategy in which acceptable “content” is defined and negotiated at the individual, group, and organizational level. In other words, the “what” will be defined.
Know-How
Many of the definitions were similar for know how. Often skill and process, “how to use” and experience were used. Those who defined knowledge as something that was possessed also implied that know-how was “possessed.”
While each defined know how differently, they all seemed to share a common understanding that know how was not easily measured, had to do with a process or skill which helped to create know-how, and was informal learning. It also seemed that many of the definitions included how know-how was applied. Some of these included:
“Application of both what to do and knowing how to use it, mainly in an efficient way.” (R.).
“I guess I know…I’m going to use as…I know the know-hows of web development, know-hows of graphic design.” (D.)
“…, know how get things done even if it’s delegating.” (S.)
“I guess that’s knowledge that translates….into an ability to do something.” (P.)
“…intuitive gut navigation.” (H.)
While content seemed static, know-how seemed more action oriented. Know-how also appears to be an individual concept. When defining know-how, the participants tended to use the first person. No one used a collective pronoun in their definitions.
This brings up questions as to the role of “know-how” in the group collaborative process. If it is considered an individual attribute, can a group have “know-how”? Is there such a thing as collective “know-how”? Would it be developed or used in the same way as individual know how?
Design
After the first series of interviews, I noticed that many of the participants used the term “design”, but each in a slightly different way. As a result, a definition of design was included in the second interview. In fact, the definition of design had very little in common from speaker to speaker. In addition, it seemed the most difficult term for the participants to define, most having long pauses before they answered.
Those from the training department tended to perceive design as a definitive construct using terms such as “strategies”,“content”, “framework”, and “curriculum.” Design was a more situated term to define for those in the elearning department, grounded in the creative and meaning making process. For example, “Design is the…planful…elegance and pattern…which gives…definition and meaning.” (R.). Not only is there some situated aspect to design, but those in the elearning department identify a sense of agency in their definitions.
Such a divergence in the understanding of what “design” is could lead to difference in understanding during the creation of a collaborative document, especially when there is no structure to the document, such as the second document studied. The first writing project, using a clearly defined structure was, “Well, the quarterly report’s always a by-product of individual contributions.” (R., group interview). On the other hand, the second collaborative project studied was a document created by the group to help identify the various aspects of the elearning project. In discussing this document in a group interview, the difficulty in creating an agreed upon product was obvious:
R: Well, what formally…I think the … for the classroom trainers, they have a document. Module 1 contains X number of elements. Module 2 contains X number of elements. Eh…for me, there’s a sort of isomorphic mapping of those content elements onto a schema that reflects those same strains and tho…and that same order. Uh…And I’ll give you a copy of this map which talks about where those elements are…
Later:
P: There’s a certain way to do that in the classroom. So, um… I think that’s…I don’t know if you can…say right now what your product is going to be. It’s going to be some type of elearning product.
R: Right. I mean…
P: But what it’s going to look like and how it’s…how it’s going to work is not…really isn’t there yet.
R: It isn’t really there... I mean, we have an idea…
Those in the training department seem to perceive design in what Buchanan (1992) refers to as the “categories” of design: “Categories have fixed meanings that are accepted within the framework of a theory or a philosophy, and serve as the basis for analyzing what already exist (p. 12).” The elearning department looks at the possibilities of design, however. This is what Buchanan refers to as “placement” of design. “Placements have boundaries to shape and constrain meaning, but are not rigidly fixed and determinate. The boundary of a placement gives a context or orientation to thinking, but the application to a specific situation can generate a new perception of that situation and, hence, a new possibility to be tested. Therefore, placements are sources of new ideas and possibilities when applied to problems in concrete circumstances (p. 13).”
It appears that coming to the collaborative writing process from these two different approaches affects the knowledge creation and collaborative process.
Conclusion
In this project, it would appear that the source of conflict over epistemology was not a shared understanding of what content was (information, tangible) or know-how (intangible), but rather a shared understanding of design (what is as opposed to what can be created). This appears to be an overlooked aspect of the collaborative writing process.
Reference:
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, Vol. 8, No. 2 Accessed: 11/12/2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Learning Theories: In support of Connectivism
I was first introduced to the idea of Connectivism through an online conference hosted by George Sieman's group at the University of Manitoba. Over the last 2 years, my thoughts have changed, (as have George's and others)as the theory evolves. This fall, I dropped in and was a lurker to the Connectivism course offered by the University of Manitoba, which helped me to clarify both what I like about the theory and some of the short comings.
Connectivism as a learning theory
I initially embraced Connectism as an extension of Constructivism, not really seeing it as a new learning theory. However, as I continue to integrate social networking tools into my teaching, analyze what skills my students need for the 21st Century, and redesign my instructional design to help address these needs, I have begun to see the difference between the two theories. I now see that there is a difference in understanding of learning (and facilitating learning).
This became especially evident as I began to revise my courses for this semester. I am teaching a course I have taught in one format or another for 15 years now, Speech Composition and Presentation. What has changed is the fact that many of my students in their future careers will not have immediate contact with their audience (primary or secondary). This is very important to public speaking, as face to face contact with the full audience means that you can adjust your message, style, language, even body language based on the audience feedback (verbal or non-verbal). However, more and more "public speaking" for organizations is including video clips (i.e. on YouTube) or pod casts. As a result, speakers need to find new ways to get feedback including comments and networking with potential audiences.
What this means for my instruction is that I need to teach my students how to create these feedback channels (networking) and how to deal with the more individualized needs assessment for their audience. No longer can speakers lump an audience together and assess their needs as a whole. There is much more segmentation and students need to understand the impact their message has on not just the listener, but that listener's network. Secondary audience analysis becomes even more important (as ideas can then be transferred through the network).
Research support in distinguishing the two theories
My current research on distributed groups in an organization is leaning towards support (I am just in the preliminary analysis stage) supporting George's contention that there is a difference in learning in the new networked environment which Constructivism does not support.
Individuals in a distributed group are members of various networks. Each of their networks provide different pieces of information and ways of negotiating meaning. Language, processes, and definition of "knowledge" varies between networks. However, a distributed group then creates its own "language", processes, and understanding of knowledge to be used within that network. These new understandings then have an impact on the other networks. In some cases, new language, processes, and understanding is transferred to members' other networks. But more often than not, a new negotiation of language, processes, and knowledge is the result of a member's interaction with the distributed group.
While constructivism and cognitive learning theories address the individual's learning, they do not address the group level learning and transfer/negotiation of understanding. As a result, connectivism seems to give a better explanation of the "group level" or organizational learning that goes on. It addresses the individual, group, and individual/group dynamic.
Culture and the Politics of Networks
Over the last two years, there has been something about the theory, however, that bothered me. As I begin to do my analysis, I feel I have put my finger on the major short coming of the theory as it exists today. Connectivism is grounded in systems and chaos theories. I find that these theories try to take the "personal" or "values" out of the approach. However, as humans, all of us are influenced by politics and culture.
Any one involved in curriculum develop understands that curriculum choices are dependent upon what those in power (whether it be professional leaders, instructors, governmental leaders, society, or policy makers) feel is important to know. Often, this is dependent upon their epistemology. Epistemology can be defined as, "An area of philosophical study that focuses on our understanding of knowledge. Epistemology asks questions about what is true and false, and what constitutes valid “information”. A key question of epistemology is whether information is absolute or relative, reflecting a tension between the “scientific method” and “social constructivism”." In other words, "knowledge" is a complex system that is dependent upon values, negotiation of meaning, patterns of behavior, and even recognition of stimuli. "Snow" and what constitutes snow will differ in the English speaking world depending on what part of the world you live in. (I use this as an example as we currently have "snow", "sleet", and "freezing rain" this morning). In my part of the country, it is important to know the difference as it will have an impact on a person's safety. But it is not important for someone in Florida to know this. This is one reason why curriculum in the US is diverse from state to state.
Epistemology is based on culture (patterns of behavior). Culture has an impact on the values of knowledge, interaction, network creation, even the difference between group and individual. The politics of a network adds to the complexity of epistemology. I am finding that power structures within networks help to establish which knowledge is considered important and which is considered irrelevant. Competing definitions between networks causes tension between networks and within intersecting networks (as with distributed groups). How these tensions are resolved (or not) will impact learning.
What's next?
As a result, in order for connectivism to be a viable learning theory, it is important that the impact of politics and culture be integrated into the theory. Specifically, the following questions need to be asked:
1) How are networks constructed? What are the power structures within networks? How are connection established? What factors (cultural and political) influence the construction of a learning network?
2) Are there differences between "engineered" networks (in which a network, such as a distributed group, is created for a specific purpose) and organic network (in which connections are established due to need or common interests without any outside help)? How is meaning negotiated in each, are patterns of behavior established, and is the network maintained?
3) How can these networks be leveraged to facilitate learning? How should instruction be designed to address the political and cultural factors that effect learning due to the networked/connectedness environment? What skills do students need to learn in a connected environment?
Connectivism as a learning theory
I initially embraced Connectism as an extension of Constructivism, not really seeing it as a new learning theory. However, as I continue to integrate social networking tools into my teaching, analyze what skills my students need for the 21st Century, and redesign my instructional design to help address these needs, I have begun to see the difference between the two theories. I now see that there is a difference in understanding of learning (and facilitating learning).
This became especially evident as I began to revise my courses for this semester. I am teaching a course I have taught in one format or another for 15 years now, Speech Composition and Presentation. What has changed is the fact that many of my students in their future careers will not have immediate contact with their audience (primary or secondary). This is very important to public speaking, as face to face contact with the full audience means that you can adjust your message, style, language, even body language based on the audience feedback (verbal or non-verbal). However, more and more "public speaking" for organizations is including video clips (i.e. on YouTube) or pod casts. As a result, speakers need to find new ways to get feedback including comments and networking with potential audiences.
What this means for my instruction is that I need to teach my students how to create these feedback channels (networking) and how to deal with the more individualized needs assessment for their audience. No longer can speakers lump an audience together and assess their needs as a whole. There is much more segmentation and students need to understand the impact their message has on not just the listener, but that listener's network. Secondary audience analysis becomes even more important (as ideas can then be transferred through the network).
Research support in distinguishing the two theories
My current research on distributed groups in an organization is leaning towards support (I am just in the preliminary analysis stage) supporting George's contention that there is a difference in learning in the new networked environment which Constructivism does not support.
Individuals in a distributed group are members of various networks. Each of their networks provide different pieces of information and ways of negotiating meaning. Language, processes, and definition of "knowledge" varies between networks. However, a distributed group then creates its own "language", processes, and understanding of knowledge to be used within that network. These new understandings then have an impact on the other networks. In some cases, new language, processes, and understanding is transferred to members' other networks. But more often than not, a new negotiation of language, processes, and knowledge is the result of a member's interaction with the distributed group.
While constructivism and cognitive learning theories address the individual's learning, they do not address the group level learning and transfer/negotiation of understanding. As a result, connectivism seems to give a better explanation of the "group level" or organizational learning that goes on. It addresses the individual, group, and individual/group dynamic.
Culture and the Politics of Networks
Over the last two years, there has been something about the theory, however, that bothered me. As I begin to do my analysis, I feel I have put my finger on the major short coming of the theory as it exists today. Connectivism is grounded in systems and chaos theories. I find that these theories try to take the "personal" or "values" out of the approach. However, as humans, all of us are influenced by politics and culture.
Any one involved in curriculum develop understands that curriculum choices are dependent upon what those in power (whether it be professional leaders, instructors, governmental leaders, society, or policy makers) feel is important to know. Often, this is dependent upon their epistemology. Epistemology can be defined as, "An area of philosophical study that focuses on our understanding of knowledge. Epistemology asks questions about what is true and false, and what constitutes valid “information”. A key question of epistemology is whether information is absolute or relative, reflecting a tension between the “scientific method” and “social constructivism”." In other words, "knowledge" is a complex system that is dependent upon values, negotiation of meaning, patterns of behavior, and even recognition of stimuli. "Snow" and what constitutes snow will differ in the English speaking world depending on what part of the world you live in. (I use this as an example as we currently have "snow", "sleet", and "freezing rain" this morning). In my part of the country, it is important to know the difference as it will have an impact on a person's safety. But it is not important for someone in Florida to know this. This is one reason why curriculum in the US is diverse from state to state.
Epistemology is based on culture (patterns of behavior). Culture has an impact on the values of knowledge, interaction, network creation, even the difference between group and individual. The politics of a network adds to the complexity of epistemology. I am finding that power structures within networks help to establish which knowledge is considered important and which is considered irrelevant. Competing definitions between networks causes tension between networks and within intersecting networks (as with distributed groups). How these tensions are resolved (or not) will impact learning.
What's next?
As a result, in order for connectivism to be a viable learning theory, it is important that the impact of politics and culture be integrated into the theory. Specifically, the following questions need to be asked:
1) How are networks constructed? What are the power structures within networks? How are connection established? What factors (cultural and political) influence the construction of a learning network?
2) Are there differences between "engineered" networks (in which a network, such as a distributed group, is created for a specific purpose) and organic network (in which connections are established due to need or common interests without any outside help)? How is meaning negotiated in each, are patterns of behavior established, and is the network maintained?
3) How can these networks be leveraged to facilitate learning? How should instruction be designed to address the political and cultural factors that effect learning due to the networked/connectedness environment? What skills do students need to learn in a connected environment?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Do we want a world of outliers?
There has been much discussion about the new book out analyzing how highly successful people have achieved that success. Let me begin by clarifying that I have not read the book so my comments are in reaction to others interpretation of the book. But here is my reaction to some of the posts others have written.
Michelle Martin
Michelle asked the question as to whether we should be changing the learning environment to help support "budding" outliers. In fact, I am a bit concerned with jumping on the outliers bandwagon. My question, as I read her post was, would I want one of these outliers as my boss or in my class? Aren't they outliers because they are outside of the system? I guess, then this also addresses her question of environment, shouldn't we be fixing the system if there are so many outliers that can't work within the system, rather than trying to develop more outliers? Finally, (as I did not read the book, I don't know if it is addressed) what about the outliers who are unsuccessful?
My concern is that our country and even globally, many countries, are developing a duel system of those "in" the system, and those "outside of the system". As we push more and more people outside of the system, we are loosing our middle class and core of society that will bring us back to reality when the outliers want to take us into dangerous territory. I did a paper a while back on the psychology of the entrepreneur, and we found that they had a much greater propensity for risk taking and acceptance of failure. Often entrepreneurs fail, but are able to overcome that failure. There was overwhelming evidence that entrepreneurs did have a certain psychological profile. But what about those in marginal communities that don't have that optimistic outlook? And how do those that are born into an outlier community that is UNSUCCESSFUL overcome those barriers to be "successful" in life.
This brings me to another thought. Who has determined what "success" is? Over the Christmas holidays, my kids and I watched the show, "Secret Millionaire." What struck us (and many of the millionaires) was that there were very successful people who lived in very poor areas. These people were part of the community, contributing to society, but on very limited means. One women in particular, started a stable in the Watts neighborhood of LA. She was able to maintain this stable, helping to keep teenagers off the street and out of the gangs. Was not this success? Is this woman not an outlier for her community? However, on paper, she would be considered an "average" person or marginally successful because she did not own a company or make millions of dollars (which I think was the point of the show).
Britt Watwood
Britt brings up the question of practice. He points out how allowing for people to practice will allow them to be successful in what they are trying to learn. However, he does not bring up the problems of practicing just one thing over and over. As Ken Allen points out, will practice alone allow one to be an "expert" or rather just someone who is accomplished in a skill? I wonder if the book addresses the politics of sport. Sometimes, those with a natural aptitude might have difficulty accomplishing their goals because they are not allowed the time or opportunity to practice. My children's own experience with sports has taught them how to handle the politics of "success" or "expertise".
I worry that in concentrating on just one skill, there are other skills being lost. I see many student athletes who are lacking in some of the more basic skills of empathy, or even communication. What about the universal man like Divinci? If he only concentrated on painting, do you think he would have been as successful? I have had students that become obsessed with one aspect of my course. They become "expert" at it, but miss the more important context in which this skill is needed. For example, I have had students that spend hours on their powerpoints, trying different things, putting in links, etc... It is a masterpiece, but is not necessary for a professional presentation. This tunnel vision is advantageous when society is willing to accept the idea, but can lead to disaster when a person's skill is not really needed (is it really necessary to be an "expert" at dungeon's and dragons?). This is where the politics of success come in.
Ken Allen<
Ken wrote:
This is one message that I took from Outliers, that a successful society has to be built on collaboration for the common good, not just for the privileged or the elite.
I was glad to see that this was the message of this book (as Michelle also spoke similarly). However, I can't help but think of "super successful" people like Jake Walsh who was successful on the backs of others. I keep thinking that in order for society to be successful, we need to start redefining success. One of the problems with our current economy is that the super rich became rich by pushing the marginal and the middle class into a lower standard of living. It seems that we should be striving for a definition of "success" in which wealth is shared, professions that "do good" are compensated (such as nurses, social workers, teachers, community workers, development workers) and society is encouraged to look at our world as a connected ecosystem in which the individual actions of one person has an impact (positive or negative) on others who may not be visible.
Michelle Martin
Michelle asked the question as to whether we should be changing the learning environment to help support "budding" outliers. In fact, I am a bit concerned with jumping on the outliers bandwagon. My question, as I read her post was, would I want one of these outliers as my boss or in my class? Aren't they outliers because they are outside of the system? I guess, then this also addresses her question of environment, shouldn't we be fixing the system if there are so many outliers that can't work within the system, rather than trying to develop more outliers? Finally, (as I did not read the book, I don't know if it is addressed) what about the outliers who are unsuccessful?
My concern is that our country and even globally, many countries, are developing a duel system of those "in" the system, and those "outside of the system". As we push more and more people outside of the system, we are loosing our middle class and core of society that will bring us back to reality when the outliers want to take us into dangerous territory. I did a paper a while back on the psychology of the entrepreneur, and we found that they had a much greater propensity for risk taking and acceptance of failure. Often entrepreneurs fail, but are able to overcome that failure. There was overwhelming evidence that entrepreneurs did have a certain psychological profile. But what about those in marginal communities that don't have that optimistic outlook? And how do those that are born into an outlier community that is UNSUCCESSFUL overcome those barriers to be "successful" in life.
This brings me to another thought. Who has determined what "success" is? Over the Christmas holidays, my kids and I watched the show, "Secret Millionaire." What struck us (and many of the millionaires) was that there were very successful people who lived in very poor areas. These people were part of the community, contributing to society, but on very limited means. One women in particular, started a stable in the Watts neighborhood of LA. She was able to maintain this stable, helping to keep teenagers off the street and out of the gangs. Was not this success? Is this woman not an outlier for her community? However, on paper, she would be considered an "average" person or marginally successful because she did not own a company or make millions of dollars (which I think was the point of the show).
Britt Watwood
Britt brings up the question of practice. He points out how allowing for people to practice will allow them to be successful in what they are trying to learn. However, he does not bring up the problems of practicing just one thing over and over. As Ken Allen points out, will practice alone allow one to be an "expert" or rather just someone who is accomplished in a skill? I wonder if the book addresses the politics of sport. Sometimes, those with a natural aptitude might have difficulty accomplishing their goals because they are not allowed the time or opportunity to practice. My children's own experience with sports has taught them how to handle the politics of "success" or "expertise".
I worry that in concentrating on just one skill, there are other skills being lost. I see many student athletes who are lacking in some of the more basic skills of empathy, or even communication. What about the universal man like Divinci? If he only concentrated on painting, do you think he would have been as successful? I have had students that become obsessed with one aspect of my course. They become "expert" at it, but miss the more important context in which this skill is needed. For example, I have had students that spend hours on their powerpoints, trying different things, putting in links, etc... It is a masterpiece, but is not necessary for a professional presentation. This tunnel vision is advantageous when society is willing to accept the idea, but can lead to disaster when a person's skill is not really needed (is it really necessary to be an "expert" at dungeon's and dragons?). This is where the politics of success come in.
Ken Allen<
Ken wrote:
This is one message that I took from Outliers, that a successful society has to be built on collaboration for the common good, not just for the privileged or the elite.
I was glad to see that this was the message of this book (as Michelle also spoke similarly). However, I can't help but think of "super successful" people like Jake Walsh who was successful on the backs of others. I keep thinking that in order for society to be successful, we need to start redefining success. One of the problems with our current economy is that the super rich became rich by pushing the marginal and the middle class into a lower standard of living. It seems that we should be striving for a definition of "success" in which wealth is shared, professions that "do good" are compensated (such as nurses, social workers, teachers, community workers, development workers) and society is encouraged to look at our world as a connected ecosystem in which the individual actions of one person has an impact (positive or negative) on others who may not be visible.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Why can't learning be fun?
I just ran across a new book/game series by Rick Riordan called "39 Clues." Riordan is a middle school teacher who has designed a series of books that has been tied to an interactive on line game that builds on the interest middle school students have for both gaming and social networks. It appears to be a good way to get the next generation interested in reading, critical thinking, and problem solving in a fun way.
Now, I am actually surprised that I have not heard of this series: neither negative or positive. I would have thought it would be an instant hit from all the Webkins fans or seen as the next threat to the educational system by educators who still choose Ethan Frome as required reading.
Bringing Fun into Education (regardless of age)
I have seen my own kids become interested in history, math, and even engineering through playing computer games. I know it is rarely used in their schools, but I see the role games can play in helping students learn to problem solve, think critically, and even learn content and skills. Both Karyn Romeis and Ken Allen have written good posts in the past about its potential.
However, as I begin to think about the possibilities of learning from games and social networks, I can't get past the barrier of convincing company executives of allowing their workers some periods of fun as they learn. I can hear the complaints now: How do we justify investments in games to our stakeholders? It's play, not learning. How will that help their productivity? Can you give us the numbers on that? This is work, not recreational time.
If we look at the track, though, of some of the more successful students in a school, we will see that many have extra-curricular activities that give them the skills they need in the workplace (group work, critical thinking, strategies, interpersonal communication, task management). So why aren't we creating more "fun" elearning activities such as those used in second life? Because it is an uphill battle to convince society that "fun" and "playing" have a role in learning.
Not a New Debate
You need only read Dewey's and Taylor's works to see that this debate has been around for decades. For some reason, I will never understand, Taylor's theories that basically equate humans to automatons, seems to win out when investment decisions are made. Perhaps that is because it is easier to measure quantitatively than qualitatively. I also wonder if management is afraid to make workers too content and/or lacking in discipline. Related to this is what to do about the parts of a job that are not fun or exciting? Such as report writing, weekly meetings, resolving personal conflicts, and taking care of daily routine tasks that can become tedious.
I think there is definitely new possibilities into make learning more enjoyable. But first we must achieve the Mount Everest task of convincing management and workers that learning can be fun.
Now, I am actually surprised that I have not heard of this series: neither negative or positive. I would have thought it would be an instant hit from all the Webkins fans or seen as the next threat to the educational system by educators who still choose Ethan Frome as required reading.
Bringing Fun into Education (regardless of age)
I have seen my own kids become interested in history, math, and even engineering through playing computer games. I know it is rarely used in their schools, but I see the role games can play in helping students learn to problem solve, think critically, and even learn content and skills. Both Karyn Romeis and Ken Allen have written good posts in the past about its potential.
However, as I begin to think about the possibilities of learning from games and social networks, I can't get past the barrier of convincing company executives of allowing their workers some periods of fun as they learn. I can hear the complaints now: How do we justify investments in games to our stakeholders? It's play, not learning. How will that help their productivity? Can you give us the numbers on that? This is work, not recreational time.
If we look at the track, though, of some of the more successful students in a school, we will see that many have extra-curricular activities that give them the skills they need in the workplace (group work, critical thinking, strategies, interpersonal communication, task management). So why aren't we creating more "fun" elearning activities such as those used in second life? Because it is an uphill battle to convince society that "fun" and "playing" have a role in learning.
Not a New Debate
You need only read Dewey's and Taylor's works to see that this debate has been around for decades. For some reason, I will never understand, Taylor's theories that basically equate humans to automatons, seems to win out when investment decisions are made. Perhaps that is because it is easier to measure quantitatively than qualitatively. I also wonder if management is afraid to make workers too content and/or lacking in discipline. Related to this is what to do about the parts of a job that are not fun or exciting? Such as report writing, weekly meetings, resolving personal conflicts, and taking care of daily routine tasks that can become tedious.
I think there is definitely new possibilities into make learning more enjoyable. But first we must achieve the Mount Everest task of convincing management and workers that learning can be fun.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Situated and organizational learning
I currently am reading an article by Contu and Wilmont which points out the short comings of current organizational learning researchers' use of power and the understanding of power structures on learning in the context of situated learning.
I have been able to just pop in and out of the connectivism course (and the amount of information is overwhelming). However, I am hoping that there is going to be more discussion about the power structures and use of power within and between networks; sort of a critical pedagogy of connectivism.
My feeling is that too many times the power structure is the elephant in the room, the major force and barrier to learning and evaluation that we refuse to recognize. Which brings me back to situated learning. If we do begin to recognize and understand the influence of power as a part of situated learning, as Contu and Willmont suggest, situated learning theory will be much more relevant as a tool for analysis and a basis for research.
I have been able to just pop in and out of the connectivism course (and the amount of information is overwhelming). However, I am hoping that there is going to be more discussion about the power structures and use of power within and between networks; sort of a critical pedagogy of connectivism.
My feeling is that too many times the power structure is the elephant in the room, the major force and barrier to learning and evaluation that we refuse to recognize. Which brings me back to situated learning. If we do begin to recognize and understand the influence of power as a part of situated learning, as Contu and Willmont suggest, situated learning theory will be much more relevant as a tool for analysis and a basis for research.
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Olympics, organizations, and the first day of class
I had my first day back at school today. What struck me as I walked about the campus was the diversity I saw. This is the first time I have really noticed the different people that make up the campus. Perhaps it comes from watching the Olympics.
I started thinking of the parallels between the Olympics and the first day of school. We start the semester with such hopes, but by the end, many are overwhelmed, elated, disappointed, and everyone is ready for the semester to end.\
Open Communication vs. Keeping a Lid on Communication
Speaking of the Olympics, there were many comments on the "openness" within China. Many complained that China did not allow the openness that many expected. However, this got me to thinking of the openness that western companies have. While our society advocates openness and discussion on paper, the fact is that many organizations (as was claimed by critics of China) make it very difficult for desenting voices to be heard.
How many times have you heard: "we have an open door policy" yet those who open the doors are asked to pass through outside (forced out of the company)? How many times has the messenger been killed? How often are desenters asked to show support for an idea so there is a "show of strength", disagreement being a sign of weakness?
We should be working on creating a more open workplace where a diversity of opinions can coexist. For this to happen, organizations need to open the reigns of control, start treating their workers with respect, create an environment in which workers feel a reciprocal sense of loyalty (they are loyal to the organization which is loyal to their employees), and have true interaction vertically as well as horizontally.
I started thinking of the parallels between the Olympics and the first day of school. We start the semester with such hopes, but by the end, many are overwhelmed, elated, disappointed, and everyone is ready for the semester to end.\
Open Communication vs. Keeping a Lid on Communication
Speaking of the Olympics, there were many comments on the "openness" within China. Many complained that China did not allow the openness that many expected. However, this got me to thinking of the openness that western companies have. While our society advocates openness and discussion on paper, the fact is that many organizations (as was claimed by critics of China) make it very difficult for desenting voices to be heard.
How many times have you heard: "we have an open door policy" yet those who open the doors are asked to pass through outside (forced out of the company)? How many times has the messenger been killed? How often are desenters asked to show support for an idea so there is a "show of strength", disagreement being a sign of weakness?
We should be working on creating a more open workplace where a diversity of opinions can coexist. For this to happen, organizations need to open the reigns of control, start treating their workers with respect, create an environment in which workers feel a reciprocal sense of loyalty (they are loyal to the organization which is loyal to their employees), and have true interaction vertically as well as horizontally.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Sense of Entitlement
I have discovered that blogging is probably one of the best sleeping aids anyone can have. For the last couple of weeks I haven't really been able to blog because I was on vacation and then I was preparing for the start of the semester. As a result, I found myself waking up in the middle of the night with thoughts racing through my head (which is why I am now typing this at 5:30 in the morning).
The main thought came out of my son's soccer tryouts this week (football for those of you reading outside of the US). There are some parents that feel that their children should not have to follow the same rules or their children are entitled to different treatment than the rest of us. I found it very unfair that when a parent made a big stink to the coach, their sons got special treatment. Since entering high school (secondary school), I have respected my son's request to stay out his interaction with coaches unless it directly effects me (i.e. verifying procedures for picking up my son, getting details on equipment I need to buy for him). I believed I was making him into a better person who is able to stand up for himself and that those whose parents were running the show for their kids were doing their kids a disservice.
I have had to reconsider this over the year, however, as my son was humiliated by basketball coaches who made the second string bench warmers run errands for those who got to play (go fetch water, get the towel to wipe off their face, etc...) and be yelled at in front of the spectators whenever a play went wrong whether it was their fault or not (after all, it couldn't be the starter's fault for not running the play as it was laid out in practice because then why would they be starting and the others have to sit on the bench). When parents went to the principal of the school, their sons began to play, but those of us who felt our sons should work it out suffered. This was then repeated in lacrosse when my son was bumped down to a lower level when one of the "richer" and more influential parents spoke to the coach. The coach used to leave the playing field with his head down, as if he were running the gauntlet, trying to avoid parents that would ask for special privileges for their sons.
So this week, when this scene was repeated in soccer, I began to question if I am doing my son a disservice. I always assumed that by letting my son handle these problems on his own would make him a stronger person. However, I find that he has begun to lose his confidence, get angry at an unfair system in which people with influence or money, and developed a desire to quit a sport he has always enjoyed playing (although he has to work hard at it as he is not a natural at it).
I thought back to Karyn Romeis's posting a while back on entitlement that those from richer backgrounds felt. So here is what I am thinking: if the workplace has become the same way in which promotions, hiring, etc... are based on the "politics" of the workplace, shouldn't we be teaching those from underprivileged backgrounds how to use the system as those from privileged backgrounds do? Should we be focusing on teaching parents how to "hoover" in order to get what their children need? How can we teach our young people to just go ahead and take what they feel they are entitled to without getting arrested? Should we be teaching them how to create influential networks before they begin to "take" from others? At the same time, shouldn't we be exposing and speaking out against the entitlements that those with power and wealth feel are theirs for the taking? Shouldn't we teach our students how to use the internet to get around the current power structures to create a more just society?
I still wrestle with balancing the unjust system we currently have with morality of excepting that system and teaching those without access to it to manipulate the system to his or her own advantage. It is hard to go through it myself, but seeing my children suffer because of my morals is even harder.
The main thought came out of my son's soccer tryouts this week (football for those of you reading outside of the US). There are some parents that feel that their children should not have to follow the same rules or their children are entitled to different treatment than the rest of us. I found it very unfair that when a parent made a big stink to the coach, their sons got special treatment. Since entering high school (secondary school), I have respected my son's request to stay out his interaction with coaches unless it directly effects me (i.e. verifying procedures for picking up my son, getting details on equipment I need to buy for him). I believed I was making him into a better person who is able to stand up for himself and that those whose parents were running the show for their kids were doing their kids a disservice.
I have had to reconsider this over the year, however, as my son was humiliated by basketball coaches who made the second string bench warmers run errands for those who got to play (go fetch water, get the towel to wipe off their face, etc...) and be yelled at in front of the spectators whenever a play went wrong whether it was their fault or not (after all, it couldn't be the starter's fault for not running the play as it was laid out in practice because then why would they be starting and the others have to sit on the bench). When parents went to the principal of the school, their sons began to play, but those of us who felt our sons should work it out suffered. This was then repeated in lacrosse when my son was bumped down to a lower level when one of the "richer" and more influential parents spoke to the coach. The coach used to leave the playing field with his head down, as if he were running the gauntlet, trying to avoid parents that would ask for special privileges for their sons.
So this week, when this scene was repeated in soccer, I began to question if I am doing my son a disservice. I always assumed that by letting my son handle these problems on his own would make him a stronger person. However, I find that he has begun to lose his confidence, get angry at an unfair system in which people with influence or money, and developed a desire to quit a sport he has always enjoyed playing (although he has to work hard at it as he is not a natural at it).
I thought back to Karyn Romeis's posting a while back on entitlement that those from richer backgrounds felt. So here is what I am thinking: if the workplace has become the same way in which promotions, hiring, etc... are based on the "politics" of the workplace, shouldn't we be teaching those from underprivileged backgrounds how to use the system as those from privileged backgrounds do? Should we be focusing on teaching parents how to "hoover" in order to get what their children need? How can we teach our young people to just go ahead and take what they feel they are entitled to without getting arrested? Should we be teaching them how to create influential networks before they begin to "take" from others? At the same time, shouldn't we be exposing and speaking out against the entitlements that those with power and wealth feel are theirs for the taking? Shouldn't we teach our students how to use the internet to get around the current power structures to create a more just society?
I still wrestle with balancing the unjust system we currently have with morality of excepting that system and teaching those without access to it to manipulate the system to his or her own advantage. It is hard to go through it myself, but seeing my children suffer because of my morals is even harder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)