Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Types and Levels of Participation

Expand Messages
  • alasdair.honeyman@onet.co.uk
    Hi I m new on the block I did the comprac seminar with Wenger and that other guy and have been nosing around here for a while. My background is in health and I
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi I'm new on the block

      I did the comprac seminar with Wenger and that other guy and
      have been nosing around here for a while. My background is in
      health and I have more questions than answers. my turn to be
      Patient :)

      In response to Nancy - I am struggling
      First
      we *don't* know a lot about what other people think/feel on a list
      How much does Nancy or John or anyone know about what
      anyone thinks or feels? I score pretty low with many people and
      as a doctor I see upwards of 4000 a year so my sample size is
      pretty good.

      Second
      Is the reflection Nancy shares about balancing the need for
      reflection and action specific to the business of the sort of
      environment or is this a more general reflection on who she is.

      From the postings I have read I am afraid I don't see the
      'existential' issues ( is this word allowed here:-)) so jolly different
      from the ones - outside - in that other world.


      Third

      Is playing allowed here or is it a very adult place. Is it possible to
      be intellectual and fun and engaging at the same time or is this
      impossible (both/and)- and if the Com-prac model is in its
      infancy, what sort of nursery environment do you think it needs to
      thrive Types and Levels sounds a bit to organized for me.
      How about.

      Sandpit/water area/quite space/reading room/outdoors access/
      painting - are not all these activities perfectly valid?

      And which would be your favourite?

      a
    • Denham Grey
      Nancy gives a good review in her post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/message/1343 Partly the answers lie in the technology, i.e. loss of context
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 10, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Nancy gives a good review in her post:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/message/1343

        Partly the answers lie in the technology, i.e. loss of context
        through pushing e-mails, lack of privacy gradients, there is no space
        to take things to a 'private room' to sort out issues and share
        meaning and we have only the subject line to segment our threads (at
        least in the web archives).

        Partly participation is practice & culture, we do little to entice
        readers to post, e.g. do we stage events, ask provocative and
        practical questions, offer seminars or courses in this medium,
        encourage ice breakers apply 'talking stick' turn taking, we hardly
        reciprocate and there is little acknowledgement.....

        We are a CoP with a dense core and a very loose periphery. We have no
        explicit learning agenda and seem not to have addressed this issue in
        a structured way. We do not overtly encourage reflection,
        summarization or even strong critique. We muddle along, moan and
        lament the lack of learning, but have we done anything to change our
        lot?

        If this group were representative of the CoPs I supported, I would
        very worried!
      • nancyw@fullcirc.com
        ... Thank goodness! I m glad I m not alone!! ... I *think* I m better at it than I really am, Alasdair. ;-) This unknowing is a critical group dynamic issue
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 10, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In com-prac@y..., alasdair.honeyman@o... wrote:
          > In response to Nancy - I am struggling

          Thank goodness! I'm glad I'm not alone!!

          > How much does Nancy or John or anyone know about what
          > anyone thinks or feels? I score pretty low with many people and
          > as a doctor I see upwards of 4000 a year so my sample size is
          > pretty good.

          I *think* I'm better at it than I really am, Alasdair. ;-)
          This "unknowing" is a critical group dynamic issue that would impact
          CoPs like any group. (And sometime we should talk about this in the
          health care context as my experience there reflects a particular
          culture in addition to the general group communications stuff!)

          > Second
          > Is the reflection Nancy shares about balancing the need for
          > reflection and action specific to the business of the sort of
          > environment or is this a more general reflection on who she is.


          Haha. Good catch. I "think" both, but it certainly is a reflection
          of who I am and my experiences interacting online. Lets put it this
          way -- I've messed up so much that I've learned to recognize the
          potholes, but still don't always succeed in jumping over them. And
          balance -- in so many ways and manifestation -- is a key group
          dynamic.

          > Third
          > Is playing allowed here or is it a very adult place. Is it possible
          >to be intellectual and fun and engaging at the same time or is this
          > impossible

          If it is impossible, I'm in a HEAP of trouble! But it is harder to
          segment these spaces in an email list, which gives context to "play"
          or "work" or "information exchange" or "dialog" or "critical
          thinking/interchange" or "creative abrasion space." Add on top the
          complications of expressing humor across individual style and
          culture -- well, it can be a challenge! That said, check out
          http://www.fullcirc.com/community/faciliplay.htm or
          http://www.deepfun.com

          Dang, I'm writing too much. Back to "listening!"
        • Paul Stephen Prueitt
          I have learned to read Denham s notes carefully and always look forward to his comments when things seem to get out of balance. The quality of the people here
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 10, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I have learned to read Denham's notes carefully and always look forward to
            his comments when things seem to get out of balance.

            The quality of the people here is what is different. Not that we have a
            methodology for reflection,
            summarization or even strong critique.

            In various threads recently, there has been some references to the work on
            dialog that David Bohm refined.

            Might there be a reflection of this work and perhaps some attempt to be
            expose and practice dialog here within the spirit of Bohm's thought?
          • Nigel
            Hi All Thought I d delurk and introduce myself. I m an academic and therefore have a tendency to be theoretical but my interest in this list is primarily
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 13, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi All

              Thought I'd delurk and introduce myself. I'm an academic and therefore have
              a tendency to be theoretical but my interest in this list is primarily
              practical. I want to develop on-line communities with various groups of
              students that I need to support. I wish to be able to increase the level and
              immediacy of the support I can offer and to provide an environment in which
              mutual help and support might blosom.

              My attempts to date have been less than stunningly successful. I found
              Nancy's and Alasdair's post most interesting.

              The main thing I'm realising is that to develop the type of on-line
              community I want requires a great deal more work on my part - pushing stuff
              to my students and adding new and interesting things on a regular basis.

              I think a guide book along the lines of 'how to make after dinner speaches'
              or 'being the perfect host' for online hosts facilitators would be really
              good - does such a thing exist?

              Is it lurking in the archieves :-?

              On a theoretical note, two quite distinct processes that lead to group
              identity development are inclusion and exclusion. Inclusive processes define
              what we are, what we believe about each other and ourselves by virtue of
              membership (association with a label) while exclusive processes define what
              we are by what we don't agree with and what we are not.

              In this regard I find Ed and Paul's posts an interesting study.

              Ed is clearly trying to develop Identity through inclusive and Paul through
              exclusive processes.

              As a social pyschologist (one of many labels I include myself under) I find
              this facinating - but is it ethical to study my list colleages in this
              way? - If it's not how can I avoid doing it?

              Nigel


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <nancyw@...>
              To: <com-prac@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 12:56 AM
              Subject: [cp] Re: Types and Levels of Participation


              > --- In com-prac@y..., alasdair.honeyman@o... wrote:
              > > In response to Nancy - I am struggling
              >
              > Thank goodness! I'm glad I'm not alone!!
              >
              > > How much does Nancy or John or anyone know about what
              > > anyone thinks or feels? I score pretty low with many people and
              > > as a doctor I see upwards of 4000 a year so my sample size is
              > > pretty good.
              >
              > I *think* I'm better at it than I really am, Alasdair. ;-)
              > This "unknowing" is a critical group dynamic issue that would impact
              > CoPs like any group. (And sometime we should talk about this in the
              > health care context as my experience there reflects a particular
              > culture in addition to the general group communications stuff!)
              >
              > > Second
              > > Is the reflection Nancy shares about balancing the need for
              > > reflection and action specific to the business of the sort of
              > > environment or is this a more general reflection on who she is.
              >
              >
              > Haha. Good catch. I "think" both, but it certainly is a reflection
              > of who I am and my experiences interacting online. Lets put it this
              > way -- I've messed up so much that I've learned to recognize the
              > potholes, but still don't always succeed in jumping over them. And
              > balance -- in so many ways and manifestation -- is a key group
              > dynamic.
              >
              > > Third
              > > Is playing allowed here or is it a very adult place. Is it possible
              > >to be intellectual and fun and engaging at the same time or is this
              > > impossible
              >
              > If it is impossible, I'm in a HEAP of trouble! But it is harder to
              > segment these spaces in an email list, which gives context to "play"
              > or "work" or "information exchange" or "dialog" or "critical
              > thinking/interchange" or "creative abrasion space." Add on top the
              > complications of expressing humor across individual style and
              > culture -- well, it can be a challenge! That said, check out
              > http://www.fullcirc.com/community/faciliplay.htm or
              > http://www.deepfun.com
              >
              > Dang, I'm writing too much. Back to "listening!"
              >
              >
              > ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
              > ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
            • Nick Milton
              Nigel says I think a guide book along the lines of how to make after dinner speaches or being the perfect host for online hosts facilitators would be
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 13, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Nigel says

                "I think a guide book along the lines of 'how to make after dinner speaches'
                or 'being the perfect host' for online hosts facilitators would be really
                good - does such a thing exist?"


                Try some of the following websites

                http://www.well.com/confteam/hosting.html
                http://www.deepwoods.com/transform/pubs/DDB.htm
                http://www.deepwoods.com/transform/pubs/Community/print.htm
                http://www.bizresources.com/learning/evt.html
                http://tcfreenet.org/help/confdoc/modguide.html


                Nick Milton
                Knowledge Transformation International
                nick_milton@...
                www.ktransform.com
              • John D. Smith
                To add to Nick s suggestions... I like this essay by Phil Agre because it talks about community-building from the inside:
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 13, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  To add to Nick's suggestions...

                  I like this essay by Phil Agre because it talks about
                  community-building from the inside:

                  http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/network.html

                  Also focuses on the online issues.

                  Don't forget our colleagues in the Onlinefacilitation list. The list
                  provides an outpouring of resources related to online communities:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/onlinefacilitation

                  John

                  --*
                  --* John D. Smith, 503.963.8229, 2025 SE Elliott Ave, Portland OR
                  97214-5339
                  --* http://www.teleport.com/~smithjd ICQ: 72789757 cell: 503-975-7799
                  --* "With company you quicken your ascent." -- Rumi
                • Paul Stephen Prueitt
                  Nigel post caught my eye as he has used nicely a general system principle that an stability far from equilibrium uses inclusion and exclusion to form a
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 13, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Nigel post caught my eye as he has used nicely a general system principle
                    that an "stability far from equilibrium" uses inclusion and exclusion to
                    form a boundary.

                    Things in the world are often more complex that this. And it is a failure
                    to see beyond the surface that catches all of us in processes that we might
                    not otherwise wish to be caught in.

                    The point of the long discussion that occurred between Ed and I here, in
                    this forum, was to demonstrate that quite different principles motivates his
                    notions of knowledge science and mine. I have argued from principle, and
                    stated in a manuscript and other works, the principles that I and others are
                    developing to properly ground a science of human knowledge and the
                    evaluation of knowledge technology.

                    http://www.ontologystream.com


                    These principles are as they are, this is not the point of this
                    communication to the com-prac e-forum. It is rather to correct, if I might,
                    the statement that I am exclusionary and that Ed in exclusionary.

                    The effort to argue from principle is exclusionary IF the reader is willing
                    to invest the time and thought in researching the principles in standard
                    scholarly literatures, or to reason about the concepts as expressed in open
                    forums. In proposing principles based on real cognitive neuroscience,
                    general systems theory, and behavioral science, it is proposed that a broad
                    participatory process be in place, and be recognized as being in place. But
                    I do not suppose to offer a standard for knowledge science, nor a
                    certification that someone is a "knowledge management" practitioner. It is
                    simply to early in the formative process to create a standard, and
                    certification would involve a great deal more liberal arts (a broad based
                    understanding) of the nature of mind and community than can be done at a
                    high rate of certification enrolment fees.

                    The exclusion that I make is one of "if you do not know the literatures, and
                    do not wish to think about the issues" then perhaps you should not claim to
                    be an expert. The inclusion that I make is a framework that is grounded in
                    experimental cognitive neuroscience, systems theory, and behavioral science.
                    The inclusion that Ed makes is one that requires one to accept a strong form
                    of economic reductionism - and I argue that this form of economic
                    reductionism is not only limited in nature but is seductive and false.

                    The general argument about the damage that economic thought of this type,
                    has caused science (and the population) in general is a large issue.
                    Basically, the harm is that this type of thought reduces human moral and
                    social values that are not economic in nature and forces these values to be
                    accounted for or go unrecognized. So a life is lost because the dollar to
                    save the life is in someone else's bank account, and this is considered
                    moral? Grounding knowledge science on this type of foundation is a real
                    threat to Democracy and to social well being.

                    Nigel and I have know each other's "signature" for some time, from e-forums
                    of various types. I ask that he consider the value of being included in a
                    world as defined by Ed's certification programs (where the principles are
                    available after purchase), or a world as defined by open source literatures?

                    I also kindly and humbly request that text not be interspersed in my text if
                    there is a reply. This is because reading this type of response is very
                    hard, and a new communication (from principle) can be made if the author
                    chooses. Moreover, if I where to make a reply to this interspersed text,
                    then the replies would become overly argumentive and difficult to follow. A
                    colloquy is what is requested. I do not read interspersed text. <smile/>

                    With respects to the forum.
                  • Steve Song
                    ... In addition to the resources recommended by Nick, an excellent general book on this topic is Mastering Virtual Teams by Deborah L. Duarte and Nancy
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 13, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 05:09 AM 13/07/01, Nick Milton wrote:

                      >Try some of the following websites
                      >
                      >http://www.well.com/confteam/hosting.html
                      >http://www.deepwoods.com/transform/pubs/DDB.htm
                      >http://www.deepwoods.com/transform/pubs/Community/print.htm
                      >http://www.bizresources.com/learning/evt.html
                      >http://tcfreenet.org/help/confdoc/modguide.html
                      >
                      >Nick Milton
                      >Knowledge Transformation International
                      >nick_milton@...
                      >www.ktransform.com

                      In addition to the resources recommended by Nick, an excellent general book
                      on this topic is "Mastering Virtual Teams" by Deborah L. Duarte and Nancy
                      Tennant Snider. Very practical.

                      Also, you can find the resources to deliver a two-day workshop on
                      electronic list facilitation in Word and PDF format at
                      http://www.bellanet.org/itrain/materials.cfm. It is available in English
                      and French and is licensed under the OpenContent License
                      (http://www.opencontent.org). These materials are free for use and for
                      adaptation. If you try out these materials, we'd love to hear about your
                      experience with them.

                      Regards to all... Steve Song

                      P.S. A belated introduction to the community. I work for Bellanet, a 15
                      person Secretariat funded by the Canadian International Development Agency,
                      the International Development Research Centre, the Swedish International
                      Development Agency, and the Danish International Development Agency. Our
                      interest lies in facilitating collaboration (especially on-line) within the
                      international development community and in exploring the relevance of
                      knowledge management approaches and tools to the field of international
                      development.

                      ______________________________________________________________
                      Steve Song <ssong@...>
                      Bellanet International Secretariat
                      URL: http://www.bellanet.org
                      P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1G 3H9
                      Tel. +1 613 236 6163 x2268 Fax +1 613 238 7230
                    • Nigel
                      Hi Paul My comments on the discussion between you and Ed was intended to be humorous but in referencing Nancy and Alasdairs comments knowingly mischievous and
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 13, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Paul

                        My comments on the discussion between you and Ed was intended to be humorous
                        but in referencing Nancy and Alasdairs comments knowingly mischievous and
                        open to misinterpretation.

                        By terming Ed inclusive I meant that he seaks to enhance his identity by
                        inviting people to join him. In calling you exclusive I meant that you seek
                        to enhance your own identity by not joining Ed. The processes can only exist
                        as a couple that co-evolve neither is either derogatory or complemetary.

                        John's comment that this is a group that wont be led is I hope well taken.

                        Nigel


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Paul Stephen Prueitt" <bcngroup@...>
                        To: <com-prac@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 4:36 PM
                        Subject: RE: [cp] Re: Types and Levels of Participation


                        > Nigel post caught my eye as he has used nicely a general system principle
                        > that an "stability far from equilibrium" uses inclusion and exclusion to
                        > form a boundary.
                        >
                        > Things in the world are often more complex that this. And it is a failure
                        > to see beyond the surface that catches all of us in processes that we
                        might
                        > not otherwise wish to be caught in.
                        >
                        > The point of the long discussion that occurred between Ed and I here, in
                        > this forum, was to demonstrate that quite different principles motivates
                        his
                        > notions of knowledge science and mine. I have argued from principle, and
                        > stated in a manuscript and other works, the principles that I and others
                        are
                        > developing to properly ground a science of human knowledge and the
                        > evaluation of knowledge technology.
                        >
                        > http://www.ontologystream.com
                        >
                        >
                        > These principles are as they are, this is not the point of this
                        > communication to the com-prac e-forum. It is rather to correct, if I
                        might,
                        > the statement that I am exclusionary and that Ed in exclusionary.
                        >
                        > The effort to argue from principle is exclusionary IF the reader is
                        willing
                        > to invest the time and thought in researching the principles in standard
                        > scholarly literatures, or to reason about the concepts as expressed in
                        open
                        > forums. In proposing principles based on real cognitive neuroscience,
                        > general systems theory, and behavioral science, it is proposed that a
                        broad
                        > participatory process be in place, and be recognized as being in place.
                        But
                        > I do not suppose to offer a standard for knowledge science, nor a
                        > certification that someone is a "knowledge management" practitioner. It
                        is
                        > simply to early in the formative process to create a standard, and
                        > certification would involve a great deal more liberal arts (a broad based
                        > understanding) of the nature of mind and community than can be done at a
                        > high rate of certification enrolment fees.
                        >
                        > The exclusion that I make is one of "if you do not know the literatures,
                        and
                        > do not wish to think about the issues" then perhaps you should not claim
                        to
                        > be an expert. The inclusion that I make is a framework that is grounded
                        in
                        > experimental cognitive neuroscience, systems theory, and behavioral
                        science.
                        > The inclusion that Ed makes is one that requires one to accept a strong
                        form
                        > of economic reductionism - and I argue that this form of economic
                        > reductionism is not only limited in nature but is seductive and false.
                        >
                        > The general argument about the damage that economic thought of this type,
                        > has caused science (and the population) in general is a large issue.
                        > Basically, the harm is that this type of thought reduces human moral and
                        > social values that are not economic in nature and forces these values to
                        be
                        > accounted for or go unrecognized. So a life is lost because the dollar to
                        > save the life is in someone else's bank account, and this is considered
                        > moral? Grounding knowledge science on this type of foundation is a real
                        > threat to Democracy and to social well being.
                        >
                        > Nigel and I have know each other's "signature" for some time, from
                        e-forums
                        > of various types. I ask that he consider the value of being included in a
                        > world as defined by Ed's certification programs (where the principles are
                        > available after purchase), or a world as defined by open source
                        literatures?
                        >
                        > I also kindly and humbly request that text not be interspersed in my text
                        if
                        > there is a reply. This is because reading this type of response is very
                        > hard, and a new communication (from principle) can be made if the author
                        > chooses. Moreover, if I where to make a reply to this interspersed text,
                        > then the replies would become overly argumentive and difficult to follow.
                        A
                        > colloquy is what is requested. I do not read interspersed text. <smile/>
                        >
                        > With respects to the forum.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
                        > ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • alasdair honeyman
                        In response to Paul It is good to see someone wanting to do it properly This is always my bug bear when some people can be so so slap dash. I occasionally
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 17, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Re: [cp] in/out-up/down-near/far-same/different-sink/swim In response to Paul

                          It is good to see someone wanting to do it properly
                          This is always my bug bear when some people can be so so slap dash.
                          I occasionally catch a wiff of irony from 'that facilitator of ours'
                          So I thought I might have a go myself.

                          This inclusion thing. How about other preoccupations
                          At other boundaries?

                          IN/OUT
                          - engaged in the conversation/not engaged

                          UP/DOWN
                          - knowledgeable and experienced UP
                          /knew, green (stupid- slapdash, lazy, incoherent, buggy, childish...)
                          PRETTY BLOODY DOWN

                          NEAR /FAR
                          Allowing oneself to take space/
                          Aware of 'feeling' stupid- slapdash, lazy, incoherent, buggy, childish
                          And so staying quiet and withdrawn.

                          SAME/DIFFERENT
                          Same old story/
                          Thought it was the same old story but appears to have been magicked in to something else (where did that wand come from). It could be either the story or me that has been magicked - depending on my ontological position AND How I am feeling that day.

                          SINK/SWIM
                          Time to get out or be evacuated/
                          Chugging along nicely (completely oblivious to the sharks...)

                          This is my bastardisation of someone else’s truly excellent work :-)
                          Can’t decide whether to share or with hold the reference.

                          Alasdair

                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.