Okay, so I'm not claiming to be a genius. Let's start there. However, two things happened yesterday to trigger this post.
First, I met with my dissertation adviser. He is very good in terms of focusing my work. However, I'm always so depressed after speaking with him as I feel I will never complete this process. I had sent him drafts of chapters (one of which I found out later was the wrong file...not the 71 page completed draft but rather a 3 page draft).
What is difficult is that I have a lot of ideas running around in my head which are very difficult to articulate. I don't write in the traditional way (linear), and as I told my adviser, many times I just want to get the thought down on paper. I had sent to him a work in progress, the findings chapter (many pieces of which I have posted on this blog over the past few months). They were bits and pieces just so he could get a feeling of what I was working on. But it is hard to link all of these ideas together.
This type of knowledge is something I'm still trying to label for my dissertation. However, I'm leading towards the term of Partaged Knowledge. This is the ability to link together ideas and understanding both internally and externally to an individual. I derived the term from the French word of "partager" which means both to share and to divide. Partaged knowledge is knowledge that one would need to be able to access and link to other knowledge (i.e. linking ideas, putting into context). This might be internal like when I am writing. Many of my ideas are separate initially, seemingly without any correlation (divided). However, through the writing process, I must link together those ideas into one cohesive whole (thus the sharing or putting together through interaction of ideas).
The same can happen with group processes in which group members come into the group (especially a distributed group) with different expertise, access to resources, cultural influences, and experience/mental models of the work (divided resources and expertise). Through their work processes, their knowledge is partaged (yes, there is an English work which means share) throughout the group and beyond through knowledge networks.
Where do the ideas go?
While I might have good ideas, or even brilliant, my meeting with my adviser made me realize that it means nothing if you can't communicate those ideas in such a way that others will understand them. As my adviser apologized for what he thought was the harshness of his written comments (i.e. I'm totally confused as to what you are trying to say here), I could only appreciate his comments...The fact was, I was confused and I had written it!
For the most part, I have a thick skin about my writing. I look at the process as a means of negotiating meaning. This means I never look at a paper or something I have written as a final product in a process. Rather part of the process of understanding. But I do get frustrated as the length of time that it takes to complete a major project such as an article or a thesis/dissertation. Likewise, my family does not understand this process and why it is taking so long. I walked out with a hole in my stomach as the amount of work that I still need to do began to weigh me down.
Leonardo diVinci's lost genius
Last night, I watched a program (on PBS) about Leonardo DiVinci's Dream Machines (produced by Channel 4 in Britain). What struck me was the ending in which they spoke about the large number of notebooks DiVinci left behind, hoping his assistant would disseminate the knowledge once DiVinci died. Instead, DiVinci's notebooks were divided up, some being destroyed, some kept by a Cardinal who presumably withheld the notebooks because they were deemed dangerous (as many new ideas are), others passed on to individuals. While DiVinci's art was made public, his scientific and non-art observations and analyses were kept private as the world he lived in was not ready for his ideas.
These ideas have now been revisited and align with what we know today. What would be considered fantasy and impossible to believe back in diVinci's day, now are considered genius.
So what is the difference? Well, for one thing, we now have ideas that can be linked to diVinci's. In other words, partaged knowledge can be distributed across time as well as space and people. However, more than anything, diVinci was unable to communicate his ideas to his contemporaries (for many reasons). Now, others are taking his notes and "making sense" of them in new contexts. Had diVinci been a better communicator for his time, perhaps he would have had many of his ideas implemented. My guess was that he was hoping this was something his assistant would do. But perhaps his assistant did not have the ability to understand the copious notes his "master" had made.
So like the dissertation process, it is just as important for those with multiple ideas to be able to link those ideas together and communicate them outside of one's own head. Otherwise, it is a very frustrating process.
Social networking: the hope of someone finding your genius
Blogging, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are all ways that people are trying to communicate their ideas and "genius." I watch as my children and their friends use social networks to broadcast their ideas and work. They are hoping that someone will recognize their genius which may not be recognized in a more provincial community. Ideas that are out of the box may find acceptance outside of the hegemony of a person's own culture. Likewise, other people's ideas will push the boundaries of cultures.
So perhaps social networking could be considered the ultimate tool in critical pedagogy. Perhaps that is why so many people are scared by its use, especially in primary and secondary education.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Disconnect with the "little people"
Yet again the President was in our neck of the woods. And yet again, as I watched the live feed, one would think that this area is composed of just white, middle aged, male politicians. What about the number of working women? What about the rather large Asian population that works at the GE plant in Schenectady? What about the rather large Guyanese population that moved into vacant building a decade ago in Schenectady? But most importantly, what about the youth who are our future for tomorrow (and elected the Democrats and Obama in 2008)? Is there any doubt why all these groups feel disenfranchised?
It seems to me, in teaching communication, that those images that surround the President help to communicate who his target market is. Perhaps it is easier to get a security clearance for Politicians than the general population. However, there were other groups that were at the speech (they were interviewed AFTER his live speech). It was just they were not surrounding the President.
I hope that should he ever visit this area again that he is surrounded by a younger generation. I would love to see school children and high school students get the opportunity to attend these events. It would definitely get them involved in the political system.
It seems to me, in teaching communication, that those images that surround the President help to communicate who his target market is. Perhaps it is easier to get a security clearance for Politicians than the general population. However, there were other groups that were at the speech (they were interviewed AFTER his live speech). It was just they were not surrounding the President.
I hope that should he ever visit this area again that he is surrounded by a younger generation. I would love to see school children and high school students get the opportunity to attend these events. It would definitely get them involved in the political system.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Intuitive hunches in doing primary research
There was a new study that came out in the Journal of Psychology supporting that there might be something to ESP (Extra Sensory Perception). They found that some people have predictive powers that may be more than just pattern recognition which then helps to make a "best choice." They also found that people that have this ability also tend to be risk takers. It could be that they are risk takers because they trust their instincts (although the commentator suggested that those with a risk taking personality are more apt to have the "gift"...i.e. ESP goes hand in hand with risk taking personalities).
At any rate, as I am working on writing up my findings for my dissertation today, I keep coming up against a road block. While I can write on my blog those patterns I see without having to support them with others ideas, and scads of documentation, I do need to do so with my dissertation. As a result, I often find myself with writer's block. My family often complains that my explanations are convoluted and long winded, and I blame my academic training for this. Rather than going with intuition and a hunch, I have to be careful that I can support every sentence of every paragraph of every section that I write. As a result, there are many ideas that I can't include in the dissertation. This makes the process even longer as I try to skillfully craft rhetoric which will support my findings, and present it in such a way that ANYONE can understand it.
Now you know why I have had a headache on and off for the past 2 years!
At any rate, as I am working on writing up my findings for my dissertation today, I keep coming up against a road block. While I can write on my blog those patterns I see without having to support them with others ideas, and scads of documentation, I do need to do so with my dissertation. As a result, I often find myself with writer's block. My family often complains that my explanations are convoluted and long winded, and I blame my academic training for this. Rather than going with intuition and a hunch, I have to be careful that I can support every sentence of every paragraph of every section that I write. As a result, there are many ideas that I can't include in the dissertation. This makes the process even longer as I try to skillfully craft rhetoric which will support my findings, and present it in such a way that ANYONE can understand it.
Now you know why I have had a headache on and off for the past 2 years!
Monday, January 10, 2011
More on discourse communities: community "vision"
After my last post, I read an article by Charles Goodwin on professional vision. Goodwin looked at professionalism through an anthropological lens, but it fits well with the idea of discourse community (which is a term used more in language learning and communication).
Goodwin looked at how professionalism is both created, developed, and maintained through coding, highlighting, and "producing and articulating material representations. (p. 606)." All of this combined creates what Goodwin calls a "professional vision" within which members of the profession are able to work and converse.
Expanding on his idea, I would say that these three factors (coding, highlighting, and producing and articulating material representations) are aspects of a discourse community. Goodwin's coding is the use of language, jargon, and articulation of shared understanding that is the foundation of the profession.
Highlighting is a more complex concept. As Goodwin describes it, within a community of practice certain ideas, information, and expertise is highlighted between members. This creates a shared vision as to what knowledge is important and the boundaries that help form professional values.
Goodwin's framework, knowledge, and discourse communities
Like a profession, discourse communities create their own codes (including jargon, rules of discourse, syntax, and symbols), highlights, and material representations. This helps to create the vision (often not articulated) of the discourse community. This is often articulated through formats, processes, and interaction about practices.
Formats and other tangible artifacts (material representations), help to record, categorize, and structure knowledge both within and outside of the discourse community.
Processes and skills are used to filter and highlight knowledge and structure interaction in order to develop and maintain the parameters of the community. It is also a way to identify membership and to negotiate situated knowledge within a dynamic environment. Because community knowledge is situated, the processes and skills creates a framework within which cognition can be developed by the discourse community. When the skills or processes no longer meet the needs of the community, the community may:
1) disband and members move into a new discourse community;
2) change its skills and processes (retool); or
3) try to eliminate the situational factors that are creating the pressure to change (i.e. limit membership, try to stop outside influences, codify all aspects of discourse through rules, etc...)
Note: see the comment by Luisa Migual on Andy Coverdale's blog. It is an example of how a discourse community meets the needs (or doesn't) of its members.
Spatial knowledge in a discourse community includes the understanding of the networks within the community, the shared agreement of what (implicit) knowledge is important, and knowing who has what abilities within the community and how to access the discourse community resources and expertise. The discourse community vision is based on spatial knowledge of the discourse analysis. In turn, the discourse community vision is the basis for culture, articulating values, interaction, and shared cognition.
Goodwin, C. (1994) Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, New Series, 96 (3), 606-633.
Goodwin looked at how professionalism is both created, developed, and maintained through coding, highlighting, and "producing and articulating material representations. (p. 606)." All of this combined creates what Goodwin calls a "professional vision" within which members of the profession are able to work and converse.
Expanding on his idea, I would say that these three factors (coding, highlighting, and producing and articulating material representations) are aspects of a discourse community. Goodwin's coding is the use of language, jargon, and articulation of shared understanding that is the foundation of the profession.
Highlighting is a more complex concept. As Goodwin describes it, within a community of practice certain ideas, information, and expertise is highlighted between members. This creates a shared vision as to what knowledge is important and the boundaries that help form professional values.
Goodwin's framework, knowledge, and discourse communities
Like a profession, discourse communities create their own codes (including jargon, rules of discourse, syntax, and symbols), highlights, and material representations. This helps to create the vision (often not articulated) of the discourse community. This is often articulated through formats, processes, and interaction about practices.
Formats and other tangible artifacts (material representations), help to record, categorize, and structure knowledge both within and outside of the discourse community.
Processes and skills are used to filter and highlight knowledge and structure interaction in order to develop and maintain the parameters of the community. It is also a way to identify membership and to negotiate situated knowledge within a dynamic environment. Because community knowledge is situated, the processes and skills creates a framework within which cognition can be developed by the discourse community. When the skills or processes no longer meet the needs of the community, the community may:
1) disband and members move into a new discourse community;
2) change its skills and processes (retool); or
3) try to eliminate the situational factors that are creating the pressure to change (i.e. limit membership, try to stop outside influences, codify all aspects of discourse through rules, etc...)
Note: see the comment by Luisa Migual on Andy Coverdale's blog. It is an example of how a discourse community meets the needs (or doesn't) of its members.
Spatial knowledge in a discourse community includes the understanding of the networks within the community, the shared agreement of what (implicit) knowledge is important, and knowing who has what abilities within the community and how to access the discourse community resources and expertise. The discourse community vision is based on spatial knowledge of the discourse analysis. In turn, the discourse community vision is the basis for culture, articulating values, interaction, and shared cognition.
Goodwin, C. (1994) Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, New Series, 96 (3), 606-633.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Differing discourse communities: a major source of tension in distributed teams
I have been away from my work on my dissertation for the last month in order to prepare for next semester. However, at 3:00AM this morning, an insight into the current analysis I am doing for three of the themes I've identified (1. expertise is defined by the profession, 2. expertise is defined by the department, and 3. Expertise is defined within the organizational power structure) came to mind. So I got up and began to write.
This is still in the development stage, and I need to pull specific examples out (which I have, but the most relevant need to be chosen still) to support my analysis. However, each of these themes can be explained by discourse communities and how these communities affect communication within distributed groups.
Defining discourse communities
Discourse communities are similar to communities of practice in that who belongs to the community, how the community functions and its rules and values, is all dependent on the perspective of the individual members. Like community of practice, there are rarely explicit rules for membership and membership behavior. Some individuals, in fact, may believe they are a member of a certain discourse community while others might not perceive that person is an actual member.
For example, Eminem's use of language puts him in the urban African-American culture. However, many urban African Americans do not accept him as a legitimate member. Other white Americans perceive him as a "want-to-be" who mimics urban African American discourse. Having grown up within an urban community surrounded by the urban African American discourse community, he probably is part of that discourse community, especially around friends and others he has grown up with. However, there are no clear cut rules or membership requirements for a discourse community.
A discourse community has to do with the way in which those within the community communicate. Most recent research on discourse communities have come out of the research from those advocating a genre approach to teaching writing (i.e. Gee, Swalyes). Discourse includes shared values in communication, shared formats and rules of communication, shared lexicography (not just terms but a shared understanding of how those terms and combination of terms are interpreted and used), grammar and language structure use, and even ways to identify who is "part" of the community and who is not.
Discourse communities in distributed teams in the workplace
In my study, I identified four distinctive discourse communities: the profession(s) to which the study participants belonged; the department(s) to which the study participants belonged; the organization and the power structure within which the group operated; and the group itself.
Not surprisingly, the most successful participants within the group were those that could move easily between and work within multiple discourse communities. Group members such as Paul, Sam, Helen, and Ronda, who were identified as being the ones that could contribute the most to the group and project were those that had an ability to learn and move within new discourse communities. Olivia and Robert, along with supporting personnel external to the project were identified by numerous study participants as appearing to be unable to participate in the discourse community outside of their own profession or department.
This supports those researchers in the "Genre School" in learning how to dissect the "genre" in order to be successful in society. However, these findings would also suggest that it is not enough to know and understand the mainstream genre. It is also important to be able to learn and work within multiple genres, especially when working with distributed teams as the new knowledge economy requires.
Much of the tension on the project, in fact, appeared to be caused by the clashing of 2 or more discourse communities. When this happened, the study participants either
1. retreated to work only with those within their discourse community,
2. tried to create new meaning and/or understanding that would bridge the two discourse communities; or
3. create different communication channels to maintain the conversation in both discourse communities (parallel discussions).
In the first case, participants with power within the organization or group would be able to contribute to the project, as their discourse community could be made the standard for discussions. Those outside of the power structure, however, became disenfranchised, frustrated, and felt that their voice was not heard (when in fact their voice was not being interpreted correctly).
In the second case, a new working discourse community was developed within the group for group processes and products. In order for this to work, however, it would take some time to create the new heuristics for the created discourse community. This process was both useful, but also time consuming.
In the third case, it those that could move between the two communities became invaluable to the project. Because of their ability to interpret messages from one community to the other, work could be completed simultaneously in each community. However, when those that were acting as interpreters either left the project (Ronda) or pulled back into one or the other community (Paul and Sam), the success of the group working within both communities was a burden on those that could move between both groups. This may have been why Helen complained that she felt she was carrying the burden of the project.
Implications
This has a number of communication, training, and management implications. First, training should recognize the role of discourse communities in any new intervention. They should be prepared for miscommunication between discourse communities, parallel discussions, and the burden on change coming on those who do not necessarily have the expertise, but rather can move between discourse communities.
Second, there needs to be different channels of communication available for different discourse communities. These should not be exclusive of one discourse community or another, rather they should be available to open up dialogue BETWEEN discourse communities. Formal channels might need to be set up that encourage and allow interaction between the different discourse analysis.
Finally, there needs to be a way to ensure that group members are all adept at moving between the discourse communities so that the burden of work does not fall to one or a small group of people. This also ensures that when one person leaves the group, the group will not be paralyzed due to lack of interpretation between discourse communities.
This is still in the development stage, and I need to pull specific examples out (which I have, but the most relevant need to be chosen still) to support my analysis. However, each of these themes can be explained by discourse communities and how these communities affect communication within distributed groups.
Defining discourse communities
Discourse communities are similar to communities of practice in that who belongs to the community, how the community functions and its rules and values, is all dependent on the perspective of the individual members. Like community of practice, there are rarely explicit rules for membership and membership behavior. Some individuals, in fact, may believe they are a member of a certain discourse community while others might not perceive that person is an actual member.
For example, Eminem's use of language puts him in the urban African-American culture. However, many urban African Americans do not accept him as a legitimate member. Other white Americans perceive him as a "want-to-be" who mimics urban African American discourse. Having grown up within an urban community surrounded by the urban African American discourse community, he probably is part of that discourse community, especially around friends and others he has grown up with. However, there are no clear cut rules or membership requirements for a discourse community.
A discourse community has to do with the way in which those within the community communicate. Most recent research on discourse communities have come out of the research from those advocating a genre approach to teaching writing (i.e. Gee, Swalyes). Discourse includes shared values in communication, shared formats and rules of communication, shared lexicography (not just terms but a shared understanding of how those terms and combination of terms are interpreted and used), grammar and language structure use, and even ways to identify who is "part" of the community and who is not.
Discourse communities in distributed teams in the workplace
In my study, I identified four distinctive discourse communities: the profession(s) to which the study participants belonged; the department(s) to which the study participants belonged; the organization and the power structure within which the group operated; and the group itself.
Not surprisingly, the most successful participants within the group were those that could move easily between and work within multiple discourse communities. Group members such as Paul, Sam, Helen, and Ronda, who were identified as being the ones that could contribute the most to the group and project were those that had an ability to learn and move within new discourse communities. Olivia and Robert, along with supporting personnel external to the project were identified by numerous study participants as appearing to be unable to participate in the discourse community outside of their own profession or department.
This supports those researchers in the "Genre School" in learning how to dissect the "genre" in order to be successful in society. However, these findings would also suggest that it is not enough to know and understand the mainstream genre. It is also important to be able to learn and work within multiple genres, especially when working with distributed teams as the new knowledge economy requires.
Much of the tension on the project, in fact, appeared to be caused by the clashing of 2 or more discourse communities. When this happened, the study participants either
1. retreated to work only with those within their discourse community,
2. tried to create new meaning and/or understanding that would bridge the two discourse communities; or
3. create different communication channels to maintain the conversation in both discourse communities (parallel discussions).
In the first case, participants with power within the organization or group would be able to contribute to the project, as their discourse community could be made the standard for discussions. Those outside of the power structure, however, became disenfranchised, frustrated, and felt that their voice was not heard (when in fact their voice was not being interpreted correctly).
In the second case, a new working discourse community was developed within the group for group processes and products. In order for this to work, however, it would take some time to create the new heuristics for the created discourse community. This process was both useful, but also time consuming.
In the third case, it those that could move between the two communities became invaluable to the project. Because of their ability to interpret messages from one community to the other, work could be completed simultaneously in each community. However, when those that were acting as interpreters either left the project (Ronda) or pulled back into one or the other community (Paul and Sam), the success of the group working within both communities was a burden on those that could move between both groups. This may have been why Helen complained that she felt she was carrying the burden of the project.
Implications
This has a number of communication, training, and management implications. First, training should recognize the role of discourse communities in any new intervention. They should be prepared for miscommunication between discourse communities, parallel discussions, and the burden on change coming on those who do not necessarily have the expertise, but rather can move between discourse communities.
Second, there needs to be different channels of communication available for different discourse communities. These should not be exclusive of one discourse community or another, rather they should be available to open up dialogue BETWEEN discourse communities. Formal channels might need to be set up that encourage and allow interaction between the different discourse analysis.
Finally, there needs to be a way to ensure that group members are all adept at moving between the discourse communities so that the burden of work does not fall to one or a small group of people. This also ensures that when one person leaves the group, the group will not be paralyzed due to lack of interpretation between discourse communities.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Blogs that I read regularly (top blog list for 2011)
About twice a year, I review my igoogle home page, editing out those blogs that I don't read and adding blogs that I may find myself accessing more often. I decided that others might want to see who I read on a regular basis and perhaps find new sources of information (which I do on a regular basis).
Daily reads
These blogs are ones that I read as soon as they are posted. While the authors may not post on a daily basis, I look for any new posts almost daily. In reviewing these posts, the reason I look for them daily is because I feel a "kindred spirit" with them (as Anne Shirley of Anne of Green Gables would say).
Karyn Romeis (Karyn's erratic learning journal) : Her blog deals not only with learning issues, but many times she includes cultural observations and family issues that I can connect with (especially as I also have two teens). I like the way she integrates her personal life into the blog and the honesty in which she writes about any issue. I like to think I do the same with my own blog
Andy Coverdale (Phd blog (dot) net) Like me, Andy is working on his Ph.d. In addition, I'm very interested in the visual communication aspect of his research. I connect with many of the academic issues he discusses in his blog including how the university works, the process of research, collaborating with colleagues, and emerging ideas (especially in academia).
Ken Allen (Blogger in middle earth). I have been a fan of Ken's blog for a long time as, like Karyn, there is a high level of integrity in his postings that cover a wide range of topics that he is interested in. Unfortunately, this year he has only posted sporadically ( I am afraid that he is being held hostage in Second Life as when he began to dabble in that program was when he stopped posting regularly). Hopefully, he will pick up the blog posts again this year.
Weekly perusals
The next group of blogs are those that I skim at least once a week (sometimes more often if I have extra time) because of the quality of information in their posts.
Jenny Luca: Lucacept-Intercepting the Web. Although she is half way around the world, it is amazing how relevant her blog is to what happens in k-12 (primary and secondary school) here in the US. Her School's out Friday are must reads for me (although I usually read them on Mondays). Many of her posts deal with integrating technology into primary and secondary education on a practical, practitioner's view point.
Quinn Clark: Learnlet's and Harold Jarche often have related content. Both are educational technology consultants, mostly in professional and/or organizational training. Quinn also has posts dealing with some of the issues for other levels of education. Both of these blogs have theoretical models, research related links, and frameworks for learning that are very educational. I usually skim through and find the most relevant issues to read as just keeping up with their posts would require too much of my time (this is the richness of their posts).
Tom Haskins: growing changing learning creating Tom deals with issues at both the university level and those in the field of business (especially management, marketing, and communication education). Reading his posts helps me stay current with the field in which I am teaching. For a business professor, his posts are remarkably insightful educationally (my experience with business professors is that they are grounded in old fashioned teaching methods, usually in the behaviorist tradition).
Michael Hanley: Elearning Curve As basically a non-techy in the area of computer mediated communication, I find Michael's blog an invaluable source of information. Each post is well thought out, grounded in current research, but also easily accessible to the basic novice. His series study an area in-depth which makes it easy to search past postings when there is a topic I may need help on.
Sahana Chattopadhyay: ID and other reflections. Like Jenny Luca, Sahana's blog (geared towards adult learning) is very relevant, although she lives and works in a totally different culture than my own. There are times when I have gone back to check her location, because the issues she discusses are so relevant to issues in instructional design I face here. Her posts always have good supporting resources. She does more than regurgitates interesting resources, she puts theories into practice with good analyses and examples.
Old Stand-bys
There are some sites that I check in on when I have the time as I know the posts will be interesting (as well as the conversation). I don't have as much time to participate in these blogs as I used to as I work on my dissertation, but I access these blogs, especially if there is a specific area I want to investigate.
Tony Karrer: eLearning Technology A popular elearning blog which allows readers to get a pulse of trends in elearning and organizational training.
Jane Hart: Jane's E-Learning Pick of the day. Still the best site to look for new technolgy.
Nancy White: Nancy White's Full Circle Blog. For anyone doing research on collaboration or communities of practice, this is an invaluable resource. I just wish she would post more frequently than she did this year.
Christine Martell: Exploring with Images Christine repositioned her business and her blog last year. She now includes many of her own original artwork. I love to just sign on and look through her images as it always makes me smile. Her art has such a soothing, happy spirit to it.
New Blogs for me this year
Mark Berthelemy: Learning Conversations Although I had visited his blog sporadically over the past few years, this year I finally added Mark's blog onto my igoogle page. He has a number of interesting insights, especially into learning and learning with technology.
cv harquail: Authentic Organizations This is a hard one to describe. This blog aligns with my dissertation research and addresses organizational behavior, but from a critical literacy perspective. It includes posts on organizational behavior, culture, and a feminist perspective. At the very least, it is always interesting in its perspective; at its best it is very enlightening.
So what are you reading?
I'm always looking for new blogs. What blogs would you recommend?
Daily reads
These blogs are ones that I read as soon as they are posted. While the authors may not post on a daily basis, I look for any new posts almost daily. In reviewing these posts, the reason I look for them daily is because I feel a "kindred spirit" with them (as Anne Shirley of Anne of Green Gables would say).
Karyn Romeis (Karyn's erratic learning journal) : Her blog deals not only with learning issues, but many times she includes cultural observations and family issues that I can connect with (especially as I also have two teens). I like the way she integrates her personal life into the blog and the honesty in which she writes about any issue. I like to think I do the same with my own blog
Andy Coverdale (Phd blog (dot) net) Like me, Andy is working on his Ph.d. In addition, I'm very interested in the visual communication aspect of his research. I connect with many of the academic issues he discusses in his blog including how the university works, the process of research, collaborating with colleagues, and emerging ideas (especially in academia).
Ken Allen (Blogger in middle earth). I have been a fan of Ken's blog for a long time as, like Karyn, there is a high level of integrity in his postings that cover a wide range of topics that he is interested in. Unfortunately, this year he has only posted sporadically ( I am afraid that he is being held hostage in Second Life as when he began to dabble in that program was when he stopped posting regularly). Hopefully, he will pick up the blog posts again this year.
Weekly perusals
The next group of blogs are those that I skim at least once a week (sometimes more often if I have extra time) because of the quality of information in their posts.
Jenny Luca: Lucacept-Intercepting the Web. Although she is half way around the world, it is amazing how relevant her blog is to what happens in k-12 (primary and secondary school) here in the US. Her School's out Friday are must reads for me (although I usually read them on Mondays). Many of her posts deal with integrating technology into primary and secondary education on a practical, practitioner's view point.
Quinn Clark: Learnlet's and Harold Jarche often have related content. Both are educational technology consultants, mostly in professional and/or organizational training. Quinn also has posts dealing with some of the issues for other levels of education. Both of these blogs have theoretical models, research related links, and frameworks for learning that are very educational. I usually skim through and find the most relevant issues to read as just keeping up with their posts would require too much of my time (this is the richness of their posts).
Tom Haskins: growing changing learning creating Tom deals with issues at both the university level and those in the field of business (especially management, marketing, and communication education). Reading his posts helps me stay current with the field in which I am teaching. For a business professor, his posts are remarkably insightful educationally (my experience with business professors is that they are grounded in old fashioned teaching methods, usually in the behaviorist tradition).
Michael Hanley: Elearning Curve As basically a non-techy in the area of computer mediated communication, I find Michael's blog an invaluable source of information. Each post is well thought out, grounded in current research, but also easily accessible to the basic novice. His series study an area in-depth which makes it easy to search past postings when there is a topic I may need help on.
Sahana Chattopadhyay: ID and other reflections. Like Jenny Luca, Sahana's blog (geared towards adult learning) is very relevant, although she lives and works in a totally different culture than my own. There are times when I have gone back to check her location, because the issues she discusses are so relevant to issues in instructional design I face here. Her posts always have good supporting resources. She does more than regurgitates interesting resources, she puts theories into practice with good analyses and examples.
Old Stand-bys
There are some sites that I check in on when I have the time as I know the posts will be interesting (as well as the conversation). I don't have as much time to participate in these blogs as I used to as I work on my dissertation, but I access these blogs, especially if there is a specific area I want to investigate.
Tony Karrer: eLearning Technology A popular elearning blog which allows readers to get a pulse of trends in elearning and organizational training.
Jane Hart: Jane's E-Learning Pick of the day. Still the best site to look for new technolgy.
Nancy White: Nancy White's Full Circle Blog. For anyone doing research on collaboration or communities of practice, this is an invaluable resource. I just wish she would post more frequently than she did this year.
Christine Martell: Exploring with Images Christine repositioned her business and her blog last year. She now includes many of her own original artwork. I love to just sign on and look through her images as it always makes me smile. Her art has such a soothing, happy spirit to it.
New Blogs for me this year
Mark Berthelemy: Learning Conversations Although I had visited his blog sporadically over the past few years, this year I finally added Mark's blog onto my igoogle page. He has a number of interesting insights, especially into learning and learning with technology.
cv harquail: Authentic Organizations This is a hard one to describe. This blog aligns with my dissertation research and addresses organizational behavior, but from a critical literacy perspective. It includes posts on organizational behavior, culture, and a feminist perspective. At the very least, it is always interesting in its perspective; at its best it is very enlightening.
So what are you reading?
I'm always looking for new blogs. What blogs would you recommend?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Prezi, a new way of thinking about presentations
Yesterday I gave my first presentation using Prezi. I had heard about the software and had even registered for the educational version, but then had promptly forgotten about it. Then one of my students used it in a class assignment. So giving a presentation on Presentations to my daughter's class, I decided to try it out. As this is the first presentation I've given using Prezi, it is still in the basic mode. Also, I'm not sure what the difference is between the educational version and the commercial version. So here is my review of Prezi's EDUCATIONAL version (this is free to educators and students...other users will need to pay for it).
Advantages
What I particularly like about using Prezi in a presentation is that I don't have to present linearly. For example, yesterday, I found that many of the students were much further along in some aspects of presentation skills and needed a lot of help in other aspects. Also, as this was a classroom presentation, certain questions and issues came up "out of sequence." Students would ask questions for which I had planned to cover later in the workshop. However, because of the none linear nature of Prezi, I was able to go to that part of the prepared presentation that addressed the issue or question. This made my presentation much more flexible.
Likewise, Prezi was very easy to use, especially as they had a basic interactive video pop up each time you use Prezi (you can override this) which helped instruct on how to use Prezi. Their supporting videos and resources were really excellent. Some of the most useful features included an automatic YouTube link which makes it easy to embed YouTube clips right into the video...no having to go outside of the presentation like PowerPoint requires.
Shortcomings
There are some features that I think Prezi can work on. The first would be the ability to embed any video link as easily as You Tube is. In order to embed other sites, you must first cut and paste the URL address into the Edit mode of Prezi, then leave the site, click on the link, then go back to edit mode and click on the site again. This is very cumbersome. You must also remember what the URL address goes to whereas the YouTube clip comes up on the Prezi presentation.
I also found the show part of the presentation a bit difficult to work with. I feel this would probably be easy to learn, and it would be a good alternative to self directed training as a click will focus on those areas of the presentation that you want someone to see in sequence. However, it is also possible for someone to take control of their own learning and override the "show" function.
Another problem was that the program was very easy to use with a mouse. But the computer I used for the presentation used a finger pad. Now, I'm the first to admit that I don't like finger pads and am not the best in using them. However, it was next to impossible to use Prezi with the finger pad. I ended up borrowing a mouse.
One final minor problem was that whenever I clicked a certain way on the presentation (I'm not sure what that was though), the presentation would rotate. Fortunately, there was a rotate icon which I used to straighten out the format. But this was very irritating.
Advantages
What I particularly like about using Prezi in a presentation is that I don't have to present linearly. For example, yesterday, I found that many of the students were much further along in some aspects of presentation skills and needed a lot of help in other aspects. Also, as this was a classroom presentation, certain questions and issues came up "out of sequence." Students would ask questions for which I had planned to cover later in the workshop. However, because of the none linear nature of Prezi, I was able to go to that part of the prepared presentation that addressed the issue or question. This made my presentation much more flexible.
Likewise, Prezi was very easy to use, especially as they had a basic interactive video pop up each time you use Prezi (you can override this) which helped instruct on how to use Prezi. Their supporting videos and resources were really excellent. Some of the most useful features included an automatic YouTube link which makes it easy to embed YouTube clips right into the video...no having to go outside of the presentation like PowerPoint requires.
Shortcomings
There are some features that I think Prezi can work on. The first would be the ability to embed any video link as easily as You Tube is. In order to embed other sites, you must first cut and paste the URL address into the Edit mode of Prezi, then leave the site, click on the link, then go back to edit mode and click on the site again. This is very cumbersome. You must also remember what the URL address goes to whereas the YouTube clip comes up on the Prezi presentation.
I also found the show part of the presentation a bit difficult to work with. I feel this would probably be easy to learn, and it would be a good alternative to self directed training as a click will focus on those areas of the presentation that you want someone to see in sequence. However, it is also possible for someone to take control of their own learning and override the "show" function.
Another problem was that the program was very easy to use with a mouse. But the computer I used for the presentation used a finger pad. Now, I'm the first to admit that I don't like finger pads and am not the best in using them. However, it was next to impossible to use Prezi with the finger pad. I ended up borrowing a mouse.
One final minor problem was that whenever I clicked a certain way on the presentation (I'm not sure what that was though), the presentation would rotate. Fortunately, there was a rotate icon which I used to straighten out the format. But this was very irritating.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Global voices
I am always interested in looking at the perspective of those outside of the US. I happened upon a clip of Ethan Zuckerman's presentation at TED, a series of speeches of important ideas. I rarely embed speeches because it slows down my readers downloading time. However, this was a really fascinating speech on the role of social media, breaking down the cultural uses.
In the presentation, he confirms some of the principles I have written about earlier in terms of culture and technology, namely that it is not the tools used, but how they are used. He uses graphics that demonstrate the depth of internet use; not just accessibility, but also HOW technology is being used and for what topics. As he says, "many places can GET media, it is just an enormous amount of work to do so." He advocates rewiring the system we have, going outside of the "flocks" (or what I would call discourse communities) to find new ideas and connections.
Zuckerman is one of the cofounders of Global Voices. This site creates these new pathways by finding media and blogs from around the world, translating them, and making them available for anyone interested in knowing what others in other parts of the world are discussing. Each area has translators and "curators" who who choose articles, blogs, and internet media that represent the issues of a certain region. The translators are listed on the blog, so anyone can see what their background (and bias) might be. This is going to be one of my new favorite sites, I think, as I will be able to get a perspective outside of the US on global issues.
In the presentation, he confirms some of the principles I have written about earlier in terms of culture and technology, namely that it is not the tools used, but how they are used. He uses graphics that demonstrate the depth of internet use; not just accessibility, but also HOW technology is being used and for what topics. As he says, "many places can GET media, it is just an enormous amount of work to do so." He advocates rewiring the system we have, going outside of the "flocks" (or what I would call discourse communities) to find new ideas and connections.
Zuckerman is one of the cofounders of Global Voices. This site creates these new pathways by finding media and blogs from around the world, translating them, and making them available for anyone interested in knowing what others in other parts of the world are discussing. Each area has translators and "curators" who who choose articles, blogs, and internet media that represent the issues of a certain region. The translators are listed on the blog, so anyone can see what their background (and bias) might be. This is going to be one of my new favorite sites, I think, as I will be able to get a perspective outside of the US on global issues.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Three models for a new higher ed economic model (part 2)
This has been some time in coming. I wanted to think through some of the options based on my earlier post on this issue.
In reviewing all the factors, I wanted to develop an economic or funding model that could be implemented sooner, rather than later. However, I realized that I have seen at least 3 models in use that have been effective over the last decade. So why reinvent the wheel? Two of the models are based on a large component of instruction being distance learning based, the third is more traditional.
Pure distance learning and assessment based higher education
The first model is based on a local university that was developed out of the New York state civil service training department. Often civil service workers, who did not have higher ed degrees, received training that was equivalent to a university course. Recognizing that those that received this training should be able to receive college credit, a system of testing and granting college credit for the training was established.
Approximately 10 years ago, a Swiss university bought out this service, adding there own model on to the established service. Currently, the university identifies online courses, creates its own courses, and creates a standard curriculum, all of which are based on a examination process. Students actually pay for exams rather than the courses themselves. This means that a student may not take any course, as long as they can demonstrate knowledge through the exams. Students that opt to take instruction through the university will pay for those courses. Students can also submit courses, training, and instruction to receive credit. However, they will need to pass the exam for the criteria laid out for their degree.
This allows a standard learning outcome to be used, with several options by the student (depending on their circumstances including access to courses, resources, location, learning needs) to fulfill the curriculum requirements. This also means that there is a minimal instructional staff, with most of the staff working on assessment and curriculum development. There are some area specialists who help in the curriculum development, but they are only used on an as needed basis. An instructor does not have to be a Ph.d. in the area in which they are teaching, but rather need to be effective instructors. This is because the subject matter is already developed by specialists in the form of assessment tools and curriculum. This also always the university to be more flexible based on the students' learning needs and goals.
One disadvantage to this model is that most of the students are learning in isolation. This also requires a great deal of motivation on the part of the learner to arrange for those courses/learning that will best help them pass the assessments. In addition, a great deal of resources go into the monitoring and revision of curriculum and assessment tools.
Individualized learning plans
Another local university in which I have worked uses an individual learning plan. The first course a student takes is a three credit course in which students sit down with a "mentor" and outline their learning objectives. They then plan how they will achieve these objectives academically. There are usually three options: test out, small group tutorials (face to face at learning centers), or online courses. A fourth option is an independent study, but that is used rarely. Unlike the model above, there are set courses which students must complete. Only a certain percentage of those courses can be assessments (either CLEF or assessment of real life experience).
Unlike a traditional university, there are no "departments". Rather there are designated "Area Specialists" who are in charge of a group of faculty (tenured and part-time). These specialists often are part of programs such as labor relations, healthcare, nursing, teaching, and humanities. In other words, they are more profession oriented and broader than a traditional university department. Because this is a state university, there are general education core courses that students must have to be granted a degree. However, if enough students are interested in a specific area, the mentors can ask the area specialists to develop a tutorial in that topic.
In this model, new specialties can be developed within an "area" that a traditional department might have difficulty with. In addition, students can flow in and out of the university as needed (an open university model). Most of the students work full time. One disadvantage of this model, like the one above, is that there is not a single "campus". Unlike the model above, however, students can develop a sense of "college" at their college centers, having tutorials with other students, and establishing a close relationship with their mentors.
Another disadvantage of this model is that it is very labor intensive. For the model to work, the mentors need to be knowledgeable about course options, adult learning, and have constant contact with their mentees. In fact, one reason I don't teach there anymore is that the pay scale was ridiculously low, with faculty being paid by the size of their student load (i.e. a class of 5 had a pay scale much lower than a class of 25. Someone that taught 5 classes to 5 students would make the same as person who taught 25 students in one class, even thought there was more time commitment for the 5 classes).
Traditional model
The fact is that many who go to school full time do so as much for the social aspects of being part of a campus as for the academics. In order to change the traditional model of education, there would have to be a cultural change, which could be difficult at universities that have been steeped in their culture for many years.
My current university used a very successful model to change this culture and cross disciplines and departments in order to integrate technology into its instruction. Basically, it was structured by creating a pool of funding to hire faculty who were adept in instructional technology. Each department was required to either train a current faculty member, identify a current faculty member with a technology specialty, or hire a new faculty member who had expertise in educational technology. Once this core group of faculty were established, they received tenure within the technology group (not their department, per se). This meant that if there was a need for one of these faculty in a certain department, they might be reassigned to that department or courses within that department. For example, one of the faculty members in the dept of communication also had expertise in information technology. As there were two within the communication department who were part of the technology group, one of them went over to information technology when one of the designated faculty members left the university. This same person also taught some courses in the school of business when the designated technology person in business took his sabbatical.
Imagine, for example, if this same model were used for Communication Skills, Creativity, Critical thinking, scientific inquiry, or writing (often the areas of core courses). This would allow a university to have tenure track faculty who could teach interdisciplinary courses without fear of cannibalizing a department. Smaller departments could go to the "centers" to find faculty that could teach courses in their department. General Education courses could be offered through the "centers" so that there would be a guarantee of having a pool of faculty to draw on for these courses, which may not be money producers, but are vital to the degrees. However, outside of the "centers", faculty expertise (specialties) could be offered within the departments. In addition, new areas of study, which might not fall neatly into a department, could be developed within the centers.
Unfortunately, with a new administration, the traditional culture and departmental structures proved to have to strong an influence and we have now moved back to the traditional departmental structures where departments fight for resources and/or are pitted against each other to keep "tenure track lines" for their department. For any of these models to work, faculty, administrators, students, and stakeholders (including employees and alumni) need to be open to a new way of funding higher education. Using a "business" model will never work as "knowledge" is becoming less and less a commodity that is possessed and more and more a necessity that everyone is working with.
In reviewing all the factors, I wanted to develop an economic or funding model that could be implemented sooner, rather than later. However, I realized that I have seen at least 3 models in use that have been effective over the last decade. So why reinvent the wheel? Two of the models are based on a large component of instruction being distance learning based, the third is more traditional.
Pure distance learning and assessment based higher education
The first model is based on a local university that was developed out of the New York state civil service training department. Often civil service workers, who did not have higher ed degrees, received training that was equivalent to a university course. Recognizing that those that received this training should be able to receive college credit, a system of testing and granting college credit for the training was established.
Approximately 10 years ago, a Swiss university bought out this service, adding there own model on to the established service. Currently, the university identifies online courses, creates its own courses, and creates a standard curriculum, all of which are based on a examination process. Students actually pay for exams rather than the courses themselves. This means that a student may not take any course, as long as they can demonstrate knowledge through the exams. Students that opt to take instruction through the university will pay for those courses. Students can also submit courses, training, and instruction to receive credit. However, they will need to pass the exam for the criteria laid out for their degree.
This allows a standard learning outcome to be used, with several options by the student (depending on their circumstances including access to courses, resources, location, learning needs) to fulfill the curriculum requirements. This also means that there is a minimal instructional staff, with most of the staff working on assessment and curriculum development. There are some area specialists who help in the curriculum development, but they are only used on an as needed basis. An instructor does not have to be a Ph.d. in the area in which they are teaching, but rather need to be effective instructors. This is because the subject matter is already developed by specialists in the form of assessment tools and curriculum. This also always the university to be more flexible based on the students' learning needs and goals.
One disadvantage to this model is that most of the students are learning in isolation. This also requires a great deal of motivation on the part of the learner to arrange for those courses/learning that will best help them pass the assessments. In addition, a great deal of resources go into the monitoring and revision of curriculum and assessment tools.
Individualized learning plans
Another local university in which I have worked uses an individual learning plan. The first course a student takes is a three credit course in which students sit down with a "mentor" and outline their learning objectives. They then plan how they will achieve these objectives academically. There are usually three options: test out, small group tutorials (face to face at learning centers), or online courses. A fourth option is an independent study, but that is used rarely. Unlike the model above, there are set courses which students must complete. Only a certain percentage of those courses can be assessments (either CLEF or assessment of real life experience).
Unlike a traditional university, there are no "departments". Rather there are designated "Area Specialists" who are in charge of a group of faculty (tenured and part-time). These specialists often are part of programs such as labor relations, healthcare, nursing, teaching, and humanities. In other words, they are more profession oriented and broader than a traditional university department. Because this is a state university, there are general education core courses that students must have to be granted a degree. However, if enough students are interested in a specific area, the mentors can ask the area specialists to develop a tutorial in that topic.
In this model, new specialties can be developed within an "area" that a traditional department might have difficulty with. In addition, students can flow in and out of the university as needed (an open university model). Most of the students work full time. One disadvantage of this model, like the one above, is that there is not a single "campus". Unlike the model above, however, students can develop a sense of "college" at their college centers, having tutorials with other students, and establishing a close relationship with their mentors.
Another disadvantage of this model is that it is very labor intensive. For the model to work, the mentors need to be knowledgeable about course options, adult learning, and have constant contact with their mentees. In fact, one reason I don't teach there anymore is that the pay scale was ridiculously low, with faculty being paid by the size of their student load (i.e. a class of 5 had a pay scale much lower than a class of 25. Someone that taught 5 classes to 5 students would make the same as person who taught 25 students in one class, even thought there was more time commitment for the 5 classes).
Traditional model
The fact is that many who go to school full time do so as much for the social aspects of being part of a campus as for the academics. In order to change the traditional model of education, there would have to be a cultural change, which could be difficult at universities that have been steeped in their culture for many years.
My current university used a very successful model to change this culture and cross disciplines and departments in order to integrate technology into its instruction. Basically, it was structured by creating a pool of funding to hire faculty who were adept in instructional technology. Each department was required to either train a current faculty member, identify a current faculty member with a technology specialty, or hire a new faculty member who had expertise in educational technology. Once this core group of faculty were established, they received tenure within the technology group (not their department, per se). This meant that if there was a need for one of these faculty in a certain department, they might be reassigned to that department or courses within that department. For example, one of the faculty members in the dept of communication also had expertise in information technology. As there were two within the communication department who were part of the technology group, one of them went over to information technology when one of the designated faculty members left the university. This same person also taught some courses in the school of business when the designated technology person in business took his sabbatical.
Imagine, for example, if this same model were used for Communication Skills, Creativity, Critical thinking, scientific inquiry, or writing (often the areas of core courses). This would allow a university to have tenure track faculty who could teach interdisciplinary courses without fear of cannibalizing a department. Smaller departments could go to the "centers" to find faculty that could teach courses in their department. General Education courses could be offered through the "centers" so that there would be a guarantee of having a pool of faculty to draw on for these courses, which may not be money producers, but are vital to the degrees. However, outside of the "centers", faculty expertise (specialties) could be offered within the departments. In addition, new areas of study, which might not fall neatly into a department, could be developed within the centers.
Unfortunately, with a new administration, the traditional culture and departmental structures proved to have to strong an influence and we have now moved back to the traditional departmental structures where departments fight for resources and/or are pitted against each other to keep "tenure track lines" for their department. For any of these models to work, faculty, administrators, students, and stakeholders (including employees and alumni) need to be open to a new way of funding higher education. Using a "business" model will never work as "knowledge" is becoming less and less a commodity that is possessed and more and more a necessity that everyone is working with.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Classifying feedback
My laptop battery is not working, so lately I have been hand writing all of my perceptions as I analyze my data. However, my work yesterday resulted in an insight I wanted to share. This is still a work in progress, so I am open to any research that someone might be able to point my way.
In describing the collaborative process, many of the participants (members of the distributed group) used the word "feedback" often. However, I soon began to see that feedback could be a source of tension, a helpful tool, or something that was ignored. Sometimes it was solicited, other times it was given without any prodding.
Now, most of the previous literature on feedback has divided it into positive or negative, summative or formative, or oral, written, or non-verbal. However, none of these classification systems really fit the types of feedback I am seeing in the collaborative writing process.
Defining feedback
To understand these classifications, it is important that I define the term "feedback". I am using a communicative definition. In the communicative act, there is sender and a receiver. The Sender initiates the communicative act and the receiver decodes the message as they receive it. However, the communicative act does not end there. The receiver gives feedback based on his or her interpretation (decoding) or the message. That feedback could be as simple as silence (or withdrawal from the conversation) or much more complex.
Based on this definition, I see feedback as the communication between the "giver" of feedback and the "receiver" of the feedback. The feedback could be verbal or non-verbal, formally requested or the natural result of the communication process.
Four types of feedback
I have (so far) identified 4 different types of feedback within a distributed workplace group or team. The type of feedback depended on the amount of ownership or the level of agency the feedback giver perceived. It also was effected by whether the feedback was formally solicited (as part of the work process) or was given in response to an informal communication act (written or oral).
1) Creative feedback. This makes the feedback giver a co-creator. In other words, there is a high level of perceived ownership and agency from the feedback giver.
2) Editorial. This is usually the result of a formal feedback mechanism within the work process or a heuristic created at the group, organizational, or professional levels. The feedback giver often has more distance between his or herself and the feedback receiver, and has less ownership of the task/process or product. As a result, feedback might be accepted or not by the feedback receiver without any influence between the feedback giver and feedback receiver.
3) Confirmative. There usually is a power distance between feedback giver and receiver when confirmative feedback is given (for example, a team leader and a team member). The feedback giver, as a result, will have a greater sense of agency, and by giving approval or confirmative feedback, he or she takes partial ownership (whether the feedback receiver wants to give it or not).
4) Political. While the feedback giver might have thought that they had agency, the feedback receiver holds all the cards and could decide to take ownership, give it to the feedback receiver (or force it on to the receiver) or become co-creator. Political feedback is often used to document the communication process, identify responsibility for work, tasks, or products, and to make the work transparent to those outside of the process/task.
These different types of feedback can be used to unify a group and make the work processes more efficient. Using the correct type of feedback can also improve the final product, expedite the group process, and create a sense of trust within a group (especially important with a distributed group). However, in my study, when there was a difference in the perception of the type of feedback being solicited, tension was created between the giver and receiver, which could result in resentment (especially if the giver or receiver did not recognize the difference in the feedback being solicited).
For example, two of the study participants had the following discussion during the group interview:
And later:
In the first case, Ronda is asking for editorial or confirmative feedback, but she gets angry when she gets creative or political feedback. On the other hand, Phillip is reluctant to give creative or confirmative feedback because he does not feel that it is his place in the group to do so. As a result, he tends not to give feedback very often, referring to others to give feedback even when he has the expertise.
Note: See the post by Karyn Romeis on workplace collaboration. This framework for feedback might explain the problem she describes in her post.
In describing the collaborative process, many of the participants (members of the distributed group) used the word "feedback" often. However, I soon began to see that feedback could be a source of tension, a helpful tool, or something that was ignored. Sometimes it was solicited, other times it was given without any prodding.
Now, most of the previous literature on feedback has divided it into positive or negative, summative or formative, or oral, written, or non-verbal. However, none of these classification systems really fit the types of feedback I am seeing in the collaborative writing process.
Defining feedback
To understand these classifications, it is important that I define the term "feedback". I am using a communicative definition. In the communicative act, there is sender and a receiver. The Sender initiates the communicative act and the receiver decodes the message as they receive it. However, the communicative act does not end there. The receiver gives feedback based on his or her interpretation (decoding) or the message. That feedback could be as simple as silence (or withdrawal from the conversation) or much more complex.
Based on this definition, I see feedback as the communication between the "giver" of feedback and the "receiver" of the feedback. The feedback could be verbal or non-verbal, formally requested or the natural result of the communication process.
Four types of feedback
I have (so far) identified 4 different types of feedback within a distributed workplace group or team. The type of feedback depended on the amount of ownership or the level of agency the feedback giver perceived. It also was effected by whether the feedback was formally solicited (as part of the work process) or was given in response to an informal communication act (written or oral).
1) Creative feedback. This makes the feedback giver a co-creator. In other words, there is a high level of perceived ownership and agency from the feedback giver.
2) Editorial. This is usually the result of a formal feedback mechanism within the work process or a heuristic created at the group, organizational, or professional levels. The feedback giver often has more distance between his or herself and the feedback receiver, and has less ownership of the task/process or product. As a result, feedback might be accepted or not by the feedback receiver without any influence between the feedback giver and feedback receiver.
3) Confirmative. There usually is a power distance between feedback giver and receiver when confirmative feedback is given (for example, a team leader and a team member). The feedback giver, as a result, will have a greater sense of agency, and by giving approval or confirmative feedback, he or she takes partial ownership (whether the feedback receiver wants to give it or not).
4) Political. While the feedback giver might have thought that they had agency, the feedback receiver holds all the cards and could decide to take ownership, give it to the feedback receiver (or force it on to the receiver) or become co-creator. Political feedback is often used to document the communication process, identify responsibility for work, tasks, or products, and to make the work transparent to those outside of the process/task.
These different types of feedback can be used to unify a group and make the work processes more efficient. Using the correct type of feedback can also improve the final product, expedite the group process, and create a sense of trust within a group (especially important with a distributed group). However, in my study, when there was a difference in the perception of the type of feedback being solicited, tension was created between the giver and receiver, which could result in resentment (especially if the giver or receiver did not recognize the difference in the feedback being solicited).
For example, two of the study participants had the following discussion during the group interview:
Ronda: Well, exactly that. And I think it’s that…there’s two things that are sort of complating that…that problem. This notion that have sort of too many cooks looking at your project. And then that there’s no level of authority assigned to, um, whatever you put up there. Like when s….when I put something up for review and people send me editorial comments, I personally, because I’m arrogant and snotty about this stuff [everyone laughs], don’t feel like because he said this or he said that or he said that or he said that, that I have to change it. You know. That’s not their job, in my opinion is not to tell me how to change it. Because this is my expertise. I’m putting it up there for a different kind of review. And…I don’t always feel obligated to take that feedback. But somebody else might put something up and say, “Well, you know, what do you think of this design?” And then there’ll be c…comments from Helen and Robert and Phillip and… Make one change. Then the next person comes and says, “Do this.” Then they’ve changed it back. Or change it this way. And it’s…just turns into this huge morass of inexpert opinion shaping products that shouldn’t be doing that. So there is this level of disrespect for people’s expertise, which you subject yourself to by putting stuff on basecamp. On the other hand.
Phillip: You know, Ronda, it’s interesting that you say that, cause sometimes the process is, eww, should I comment on it or is that going to [anger] her?
[Everyone laughs}
Ronda: Yeah, and I don’t ever feel like that!
Phillip: I don’t know.
And later:
Phillip: When you take my sentences and change them, I go, “Wow, that’s…that’s a better sentence.”
Ronda: And that’s…that’s…that’s my j… That’s not personal. It’s not, you’re not a good writer…
Phillip: Right.
Ronda: It’s not any of that. It’s my skill.
In the first case, Ronda is asking for editorial or confirmative feedback, but she gets angry when she gets creative or political feedback. On the other hand, Phillip is reluctant to give creative or confirmative feedback because he does not feel that it is his place in the group to do so. As a result, he tends not to give feedback very often, referring to others to give feedback even when he has the expertise.
Note: See the post by Karyn Romeis on workplace collaboration. This framework for feedback might explain the problem she describes in her post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)