Journal
Interesting first class….I’m not yet too certain about what the expectation will be. I suppose that it’ll be something related to what I think I’ll get out of the experience. What I find really interesting (and at the same time kind of distressing) is the apparent openness of the whole thing so far. That’s probably because of the way I’ve been instructed in the past. It’s usually the case where there isn’t a great deal of learning by involvement. I’ll have to read the syllabus and see if I can glean any directional nuggets out of it. After a quick scan, it seems to cover a lot of what the expectations and outcomes will be.
Okay, I’ve read the syllabus, and it is sort of an experiment in what ‘you’ (in this case the you being ME!) want to gain. Interesting….sort of like throwing you in the deep end of the pool, thinking that at this point in your life you ought to be able to make some decision on what to do (sink, swim, doggy-paddle, scream for help, or withdraw). One area I think I’m going to like is the chance to get some other points of view. What I find here currently (at Carnegie Mellon) is a stifled response or input to anything. It’s as though everyone has their own personal agenda and they are extremely unwilling to make any kind of accommodation for anything.
In reading the other articles, I was struck by the accuracy of a great deal in the Cooper article. There really is a desire for students to want the facts, the measure of evaluation and bang, to move off to the next class. Is this related to the absence or at least a lessening of the importance of a ‘Liberal Arts’ education? People don’t write as they did in the past. I don’t, I’m doing this on a computer. I’m not sure exactly where I fall here…I remember nuns telling me that in order for a person to be able to express himself, a person needs to be able to really understand why they’re taking a position and writing helps focus your thoughts. I’m not sure that anything that’s written as definitive is ever really definitive. Perceptions change and so on…but it really is helpful to be able to see where you’ve been while you’re deciding on where you want to be. I recall keeping journals as part of many courses….but at the time, I don’t remember enjoying it. Part of my experience was similar to those unfortunates in the article who were forced to write.
The Garman articles get, I think, a bit more to some of the core issues of education. But there are some really interesting correlations here to everyday work life as well (management issues and the like). As the article on contracts moves along, I see that the differences in the curriculum exist when I have any type of relationship with another individual. I see people everyday who need their actions completely spelled out, who have no desire to pick up anything additional for fear that it will become part of their expected duties. I’ve always found it very interesting that people seem to limit the educational experience to classroom activities, enrollment in some type of program where there’s an outcome (diploma, pat on the back, etc.), and so few are really engaged in what they do. By engaged I mean not only because you love it, but also because of the opportunity it presents. Why limit yourself or expect others to set your limits for you? You should try to ALWAYS exceed your grasp. When all is said and done, the only one who really knows what you’ve achieved (educationally, internally, emotionally, etc.) is you. That brings up an interesting issue that I’m currently involved with. I’m on a committee with several other folks charged with creating a new commencement system here at Carnegie Mellon. What we currently have doesn’t work, we know it doesn’t work, yet we’ve spent three weeks talking about what we currently have, and little time on what we think we might want…we just know it’s different from what we have. Now the membership on the group is varied, however, we have several individuals (key players) who only seem to want to achieve the primary objective. They’re not interested in taking the entire process and ‘thinking out of the box’. So one of my personal objectives here (not assigned, I guess self inflicted), is to motivate these folks to broaden their horizon (I’m not sure how far I can take this, but I’m pushing as hard as I can). The end result will prove the value of this, I don’t know if it’ll work, but it’s the road I think I have to take.
On ‘Reflection’, isn’t the core issue that one achieves knowledge based on their own ability to assimilate it based on their own particular background? That’s a really good explanation for the use of metaphors…to try to give alternate views of a situation to enable ‘understanding’. While folks much wiser than I can argue that there is a ‘best’ and a ‘worst’ way to assimilate information (or inputs), how somebody assimilates it may be slightly different. It’s funny, my wife and I were in church on Sunday, and the priest just finished ready the passage about the prodigal son, and then launched into a story with a slightly different twist…
Well, finished reading the articles for tomorrow’s class. A couple of things are supposed to happen..but primarily it appears as though we’ll be framing issues. I’m interested in knowing how quickly I perished from last week’s class assignment…I went back to the old Boy Scout thing without even thinking about trying to get gasoline using the hose. That was a pretty interesting exercise…since we have two international students there were some different perspectives about what’s important.
Moving on to the framing of the issues in the articles. If I recall from Inquiry class, we’re attempting to find the truth in the article in the way it is most relevant to each of us. By discussion as a group, we find how others within the group experience truth (or the meanings that are most important to them). This, no doubt, will help us focus our own deliberations (not necessarily now) as we move towards our future goals.
Didn’t do as bad as I thought I might with the handout from last week. Our table appears to have synergy!! It was interesting that nobody appeared to question the scoring of each individual. Or if they did, I missed it. It seemed that each group did, for the most part better than most individuals…the results almost in some cases looked like they could be used to prove the validity of the Bell Curve. We were missing one of our group members last week that made it today, so we’re growing.
We actually had a chance to discuss an article as a group, the Lazar article "Who is Studying in Groups and Why? We were asked to read and frame what we, as individuals thought were the main issues of each article. This is what I prepared for the class:
Who is Studying in Groups and Why?
Althier M. Lazar
Issues
From Compliance to Collaboration
Tony Wagner
Issues:
Issues:
Well, class discussion continued on the Lazar article. I notice that a number of folks are providing writing samples to the instructors. I’ve been writing in this thing but haven’t gotten around to printing and providing anything. I did connect with Nicenet and read an interesting conferencing item by a member of class last Friday, and I was going to respond (actually the initial response will be included in my folder materials), but I thought it was too long, and was working it’s way off point. So I worked it a bit, and when I thought is was more on target I responded. It doesn't appear that many folks are using this yet….strange.
The table 2 group (no name yet) met and decided to frame our take on the issue as a diagram rather than text….this was initially suggested by Hanaan, and I thought it was a great idea…we worked around the issues that grow out of collaborative peer groups…the diagram was drawn to show, or attempt to show a continuum of growth over time. Little did we know that we were supposed to be framing the author’s point of view rather than our own…well, that’ll teach us. Acutally though, I still think we did a great job of making a decision about how to proceed. We were asked to write our thoughts on the process, and I have a separate piece on that, which I’m going to send to Dr. Nelson for his input. I’ve also sent e-mail to Dr. E. to see if I can mail him some things…I’m trying to find out his media preference. For the journal, I’d just like to mention that the group is coming along, and we’ll get there…it’s a good group, we just need a bit of interaction to finish the ‘gel’ together.
Spoke with Dr. Nelson on Tuesday about e-mailing some writing for his input and I’ve sent e-mail to Dr. Eichelberger. I’ve also been thinking about this ‘Action Plan’. I know it’s a work in progress, but it’s still a little frustrating. Being, I hope practical, I’ve developed an outline that I’m going to ‘flesh’ out and go from there. I appreciate the thoughts provided by Cindy T. and Brenda S. on this, but it’s still up to me to at least start to move on it, so I have. I’ve also started reading the Boyd article in preparation for writing the ‘think piece’ for next week. Not having a policy analysis background, there were a number of interesting points made in the article. What I think I appreciated most (I haven’t finished it yet) was the fact that those involved in analysis appeared to have understood and are taking into consideration the shortcomings identified as the field was in it's infancy. Other areas could really learn a lesson to some extent here. What I really find interesting though is the underlying initial idea of the relationship in theory to cost-benefit analysis. I'm not totally convinced that issues related to humans or human activity are best described as being related to economics (I realize that's the case, but I don't have to like it). The counselor in my sees that as something that can stifle creative approaches to solving problems by 'slotting' individuals into comfortable positions.
I've seen over the years an increase in the use of 'science' in the selection for college admission and financial aid and while I primarily am involved in creating those very products, I am at the same time disturbed by what we may be missing. If the trend continues on 'getting the most bang for the buck' in admission's (be that reducing the cash outlay in financial aid or merely increasing SAT scores to make the college rank better in surveys) we are doing a real disservice to the institutions we serve as well as to our future. We'll never know the hidden talent that we may miss by simply applying a 'by the numbers approach'. Analysts tend, I think to define their approach, in most cases, too functionally. That is I think the purpose behind the discussion of the history in this particular ariticle. It seems that the more integrated approach is more realistic in gathering data and providing it for decision making. One of the things I've been fighting for, and hope to continue to fight for, is a humanistic approach to developing and implementing systems. The rationale for developing these types of processes are usually driven by some data decision these days, and the result is more data. The question is however whether or not the correct initial questions were asked.
Initially very disturbing group work!!! I don't think we're
working as a team tonight. Couple of reasons why: 1. Folks
showed up late to class, 2. Folks showed up without the think piece
written, 3. Folks attempted to dominate the conversation. We
started to get on track toward the end of the meeting but we don't have
a group project yet.
On the issue of providing copies of the think pieces, I'm going
to write to the members of the group and let them know that I'm dissappointed
that they didn't take the time to give this stuff out. I did two
versions (I didn't like the first one). I think it's directly related
to everyone wanting what they want and not meshing as a team.
We all seemed to get the point of the Boyd article (although
we took slightly different ways of getting there. My personal view
is that there isn't one best way of finding the answers, and that when
dealing with human experience, it's better to try to gauge the human element.
It can't simply be about applying cost-benefit, that would never work in
the long run, it's only a short-term solution to a problem. The underlying
issues are what need to be discovered. Assuming that for the most
part, educational policy is a political animal, it is by it's very nature,
subject to the whims of the current power elite (who aren't in power long
enough before someone else comes along with a new idea).
I decided that I needed to take some initiative and I sent a message to everyone on our last meeting. I told the group members that I was concerned about the fact that we all didn't bring copies of our writing to review and use. It seems to me that part of the problem may be that most of us are still caught up in trying to play it safe. Hanan (as usual) expressed her frustration to the group by stating that she didn't feel able to contribute because we were all so focused on things in the US. It still seems to me that we're trying to find the deeper element of the aritcle by focusing on the words the author is writing instead of thinking about his intent. That seems to be the key to me, and possibly why individuals from other cultures can have a completely different point of view.
We decided on a name for our table...the Collaborators...but didn't come to any consensus on a group project.
Just finished reading the articles for Tuesday class (I'm also in the midst of working on the Action Plan draft). It seems to me that just about every culture, to some extent attempts to limit the 'particularity' of individuals. The question is, I think, more related to who do you allow to make those adjustments and why. If you are concerned with being able to think and act freely, there are conditions that must be followed (in other words, freedom brings responsibility and often responsibility limits freedom so no one is truly completely free). The question then is one of degree (as it usually is). How much is too much, how much is enough? When do you decide to share power with or exert power over? Are there specific situations where you are not able to do anything other than except, and are these the issues that 'roil' the pot and ultimately make you want to cry for freedom of expression (or to express your individuality? It seems to me that it is all of these things. It's difficult to attach a specific meaning to certain actions at times (well, at least for those of us who aren't in the business of analyzing others). But I think that the real difficulty is in the decisions of choices that are made. Some for life, some for sustenance, some for love, relationships (good or bad), and so on. How do you juggle the sometimes conflicting issues of being a good father/mother/significant other, etc.? and still find the time to 'flex' your intellect in ways that enable you to grow? I don't think there are pat answers....I'm not even sure we have the right questions.
While there are obviously other issues to be decided! I'm not sure about the continuing import of gender differences....sometimes I think that the major cause of gender differences or problems may be caused by the very people who are busy trying to explain why the differences aren't fair. It's also a generational issue!
I've been giving some thought to our group project. We had mentioned a number of areas that we could study/discuss/get speakers, etc. However, one area we discussed, global educational policy, struck me a interesting. We have group members from K-12, higher education as well as international students. I was surfing the web on Sat. and found some information on a study done by UNESCO on education titled 'Learning: The Knowledge Within'. I sent the group mail, made copies of what I could and passed them out at class...I suggested that we could look at this as a group effort where we can all get involved in our own specialties and combine the results. Group members are supposed to read the materials and get back to me by Tuesday. The clock is ticking.
We had a great conversation on the articles. We seem to agree that there are some specific areas where it becomes difficult to choose between the hat you want to wear and the hat that's thrust on you. Again, it seems to me that society by it's nature, attempts to homogenize the population, to level the actions/responses/etc. of the population. At the same time, here in the US, we make a big noise about individualism, but at the same time, try to stamp out people who are the same. No wonder there are so many people seeking help through counseling. We haven't yet been able to come to terms with the choices we've made or those that were made for us. Perhaps it's the nature of our upbringing, our world, but there's an inherent desire by parents to have their children be better off than they were, and the children to collect more than their parents did, and so on. At the speed of society, we'll be seeing things evolve faster and faster. That's why I think that at some point, the generational aspect will overtake gender as an issue. While we have a long way to go towards a gender neutral society (well, we may never get there), the lines are becoming more and more blurred...we forget that the impediments to our succeeding as parents, educators, friends, scholars are pretty much determined by what we do for a living (a lot of this is choice), what impact our parents and family had and have on us, and then what we desire. I still think that to a large extent, each gender is in some way responsible for continuing the legacy of bias.
One last note.....everything is political...when my daughters play together, there is a great deal of give-and-take, one doesn't always win. This is true with regard to anything. In order to enable any achievement toward a goal, it's important to understand the politics involved. The article deals more specifically with educators becoming more savvy in their use of influence to better enable the involved parties in the process understand their particular part. For example, it is important for a school district to be able to respond quickly and effectively when business complains that taxes are too high, but at the same time, the response needs to be framed in such a manner that business understands that the cost today will reap a much higher benefit tomorrow.
Sipes and Constable:
Places to stand...arenas to provide a 'base' or foundation for points
of
reference. I may ground myself in a particular basis, but it
is never
'pure'
The 4 basic categories (paradigms):
Positivist (out there)
Interpretive (we construct our world)
Critical Theory (
Deconstructional
'All discourse is influenced (and to a certain extent formed) by gender,
race/ethnicity, socio-economic class and culture.'
Non western cultures may have difficulty with the western method of
strict
catagories
While there are initial 'bents' to view...there is really a migration
of
several approaches within one context. The evolving nature seems
to
indicate a multi-perspective approach is in some ways the gray areas
that
evolve as a combination of the various paradigms. The paradigms
themselves
are "places to stand" but are provisional and tentative.
Berliner --Voice Training
administrators need a different kind of training to answer the
issues
being addressed by society today on the effectiveness of education:
1. Understanding data What is it really saying
2. Public relations skills To be able to effectively and
quickly respond to issues
3. Consorting with business Being clear on the advantages
as well as
pitfalls of relationships with business
4. Moral Convictions Education shouldn¹t be
treated as business, there
are moral issues involved that need to be
addressed
5. School Reform and Community Building id the real agenda for
the nation
and acting as a force to wrestle with that
Anyon Social Class
social class predicates a different educational environment/structure,
even
if similar texts/curriculums are used. This argues the case that
class
distinction is 'embedded' in society by current social strata...the
working
class get a different view of the world than the privileged class.
Knowledge is also perceived differently...from the basic kinds
of
mechanical skills to more complex problem solving issues. The
differences
in the schools hi-lite that different approaches may in fact cause
an
inevitable continuation of class dysfunction related to education.
The net result of all of these readings, coupled
with the classroom discussion leaves one gasping for air! In
practice, each of us uses all of these methods to attempt to bring
reality into focus in order to identify and then
solve issues. But each of us has a method which seems more often
than not to be the focus of how we tend
to approach the identification and problem solving process. I
found it interesting that each 'way of knowing'
espouses itself a separate from the other, but the end result...the
finding of 'truth' (although we really can never
know the truth..especially when it involves humanity) is the same..that
is an attempt to find order in chaos. What
differs is the approach, but the end result (at least the identification
of the problem) is undertaken for somewhat
similar reasons; Something is not 'right' and what elements/issues/reasons
are causing the 'non-rightness'.
While Critical Theorists, Interpretivists, and Functionalists
may initially postulate the underlying reasons for the
problem, and how to prove that it is in fact an issue, they are simliar
in their attempt to identify and bring the issue
to equilibrium. Of course, between each other, they certainly
counter that their approaches are very different and
are driven by different underlying rationales, in truth, they are all
seeking truth in different ways.
This gets to perhaps the point of the readings (and
somewhat softened by the class discussion), that on a strickly
philosophcial basis, it is possible to identify specific elements that
differentiate one 'school' from another, but in truth,
each of us approaches an issue possibly using a combination of approaches,
but tending to ground in one over another.
The point is to allow us to identify with our own 'valid discovery
of truth' and once we have that, to suggest that we
immerse ourselves in that approach to be able to more fully understand
why we move in that direction.
I find logic in the approach of the functionalists,
possibly due to the way I was taught to learn..1,0 logic is a
wonderfully easy way to approach issues and their resolution...to say
things area either black or while, hot or cold,
right or wrong, proveable or null can allow comfort in knowing that
one can rationalize any gray area to simply a ligher
color of black or a darker color of white. However, with my training
as a counselor, I realize that the interplay of
human understanding (the differences of us all) and the tools we use
to evaluate 'knowing' are painfully inadequate as
each of us perhaps has a subtle difference in understanding, when taken
in whole should make us understand that
the truth is really in the gray not the black or white.
While Machiavelli addresses power as something to hold (for the most
part), in education empowering the learners
by attempting to share the power offers the best hope for success.
It should not be about control of conflicts
Rubin addresses this very issue by suggesting that rather than emulation
of male stereotypes of power,
that women need to use their very differences to gain advantage.
The differences in the genders, according to
Rubin provide the best means for women (and minorities by implication)
to gain a 'voice' and to exert their
influence (whether or not this is all related directly to power or
not).
It seems that base reduction of any type in interaction can be construed
as somewhat related to power
according to Burbules. However, there are situations were no
tacit advantage of one group over another
exists, consequently, in those rare cases, it is not a question of
power. I liked the statement breaking down
the real key to A's typical power of B...that is that B permits that
either by inaction, by complicity, or through
A's threat of some type of response. For the most part we are
all involved in power struggles in each relationship
we have, these very types of decisions, again, bare bones don't differ
significantly from the Machiavellian notion
of power.
In education, teachers in the traditional sense (or as we currently
look at traditional educational experiences)
wield power not only out of necessity, but after a time, by desire.
All three authors suggest that the use of
power is a narcotic that is hard to quit. The use of power even
in a good cause can over-time change to
something that hardly resembles the original intent. This isn't
to say that power shouldn't be an issue in the
classroom, or the educational experience. The issue really is
that the educational process is more than just t
he learning of facts; it's also the primary method where many learn
the difference between right and wrong and
the hierarchy of society (and their specific place in 'it').
Given the fact that educators are being held more
accountable for the outcomes of education, it's curious that discipline
in the classroom is directly
perceived as power by many. I think that it's the nature of the
classroom structure (with all entitled to the
'same opportunity' or level of instruction) that may be the cause of
some of the problems.
A possible Machiavellian solution would be to dispose of those who cause
trouble right away, thereby causing
those who remain to realize where the power really lies. But
I'm not sure that's an adequate use of power, it's
a short term solution...the underlying issue still isn't being solved,
and so there will still be groups that feel as
though they need to continue the fight against the usurpers (teachers,
society, those who want to maintain
the status quo).
Most of what we see in the media, as well as what is taught in schools
reinforces that captains of industry,
and even those who revolt are heroes (especially if the revolters win!!).
This type of indoctrination runs
counter to what we say we want to do...that is to educate individuals
to succeed following the mores and
rules of society. On the one hand we say "The individual has
a right to stand up against injustice (gain wealth)
against the government", and at the same time we say "don't you dare
complain about the homework assignment
you've been given....just do it or your grade will reflect failure".
Confusing messages to say the least.
I'm not sure I care for the style of the Kreisberg book...the chapters
were really much too long and dry. It seems to me
that he really takes the long way around to making his point.
While I agree that there is much to be said for the work of
feminists in developing possibly more methodical approaches to power
and the deliniation of power, I'm not so certain
it's necessarily due to their keener instincts. It would seem
that these types of organizational structures (that's really what
they are) exist in life in general. Looking at nature as the
guidepost, we can see that there are instances where there are
alternatives to what we would consider to be the 'traditional' power
structure, or what we've come to define as such.
Of course, any study into a particular area is going to create a good
deal of catagorization of one type or another.
Kreisberg does a very credible job providing a history or a review
of the literature with relation to these other paradigms.
I became a bit frustrated with the aspects of power with and power
between and the shadings that apparently make them
different. After thinking about this, I wonder if it's more related
to his (Kreisberg's) interpretation of the texts being reviewed.
In any event, it seems clear to me that as we progress as creatures,
we begin to look at what we've done and try to focus on
ways to make our period of time on this orb more fruitful, first for
ourselves, then for others. Regardless of how we try to
shift our desires, they are still 'OUR' desires. In making an
attempt at understanding and developing a power with relationship,
there is some manner of compromise which must be reached. A thinking
person, one would hope, fully understands and
appreciates this.
It would seem to me that we struggle for what we want and are willing
to work together with others, or have shared
relationships with others when there is some desired outcome from which
we benefit. That doesn't change with a move to
an alternative power structure. While we can come up with reasons
why there are subtle differences, there are probably,
in equal parts as many or more similarities.
Related to education, Kreisberg is describing our utopian possiblities,
not our hard realites. He outlines the reason why
a top-down, hard-line, Machiavellian type power structure is inferior
in many ways to a true collaborative, shared structure
where the give and take of the relationships are not one-sided.
But the reality is that these types of structures do exist and
they are by their nature and the nature of those who are involved in
them transient...just as the ultimate power of a 'Prince'
is transient. The trick is in what you don't see, not in what
you can see.
back to main page
The last chapters of the Kreisberg book seem to make more sense. However it seems that in just about every instance that is being described relating to the teachers, there isn't pure power-with. Is it possible to have a completely power-with organization? Probably not, Seth applied sublte and not so subtle 'pressure' or exhibited what he and Kreisberg describe as power over through selection of committee members and the like. However, it doesn't appear this was done because he wanted the power, it is more likely that he wanted to develop a situation where he could engage with peers. What concerned me more though were the other members comments related to their perception. It was almost as if they were in some way describing insidious power over in some cases. By this I mean, while they indicated that they were involved the the Boston group for mutual benefit, the real reason was still for them to gain something. The fact that there were real demonstrable positive outcomes seems, in my opinion, to be neutralized by the fact that at the same time members were coming and going, selecting other things to do, etc. I didn't get the strong sense of purpose that was being described.
But I think that's the point, relationships with others is a shared experience. What makes it a relationship is the give and take, not a situation where it's always one way. I see this in my own situation at Carnegie Mellon. There are days and moments where you need to exert your own opinion because you think it is in everyone's best interest, yet at the same time you must also be willing to change your opinion if there is a logical reason to. Nothing is more frustrating than dealing with a person or a group that is unwilling to change even if they're looking failure if they continue in their current course.
Thel issues brought up in the book seem to be anti-Machiavellian but on reflection I beleive indicate that successful group interaction or power sharing is in the decision making. It is also a relationship that must have both parts to be successful. There needs to be an ebb and flow in the dynamic of the relationship to allow for those involved to sense the value of the realtionship. This assumes that each person is self-actualized and is willing to be a positive contributor, which rarely occurs. Kreisberg makes a strong case for teaching the sharing paradigm over the control paradigm, however we learn by what we observe. Several of the teachers interviewed in the book indicated that they made or were in the process of making adjustments about how they instruct their students. This is the core issue I beleive. In order for us to enable others to be successful in coming to terms with their own responsiblity for decision making we need to both model the behavior as well as get them in the 'game' as well. Too often it seems that what is proferred as 'empowerment' is nothing more than just a way to let people focus on another issue. One empowers onself (contrary to the popular use of the term in TQM).
Getting ready for this group presentation
was quite a chore. I felt like I was pulling everyone along with
me...I really could understand Gene in the Kreisberg book in reference
to being the one who seems to be in charge or taking control (power over)
even though he is doing it in the best interests of the group (p. 142).
I think I totally understand about doing something if a task isn't getting
done; feeling lousy about it but doing it nonetheless. This has been
a pretty rough month as far as personal responsiblities are concerned and
I've been in Massachusetts twice in the last two weeks, once for a happy
reason, once for a more somber. However, I still felt responsible
enough to keep up with my reading, etc. When I returned from the
latest trip (last week), I was presented with a few notes on my groups
process for the presentation at today's class. Needless to say I
was a bit concerned when I looked at what we had and thought about how
to present it. I worked on a PowerPoint presentation late into Monday
evening and at class asked two other group members to present. They
were quite willing, however I wasn't sure why that couldn't have been decided
in my absence.
The nature of groups is that they ebb and flow from
structure to structure. Moving from a collaborative effort to one
where a leader of some type (it's unclear whether it's for the best, and
hindsight is a cruel judge of one's actions) emerges and pushes the group
to the next level. I think that this entire excercise has been an
eye-opening experience in terms of perceptions. I truly believe that
each of us (the Collaborators) feels that we have contributed equally to
the success of the group (and some of us more), but the end result is moving
forward on a project that I think each of us was quite happy with.
Unfortunately a success today doesn't guarantee success tomorrow, which
means that each day brings new challenges.
Related to this topic are issues related to my professional
experience. I am currently working on several projects which require
the work of teams. Now they could probably be completed without them,
but in the spirit of attempting to gain input from all affected parties
a decision was made to form cross-functional teams. In a time of
change (especially drastic change), cross-functional teams can either provide
a vehicle to gain positive insight and cooperation or can really increase
territorial divides. In the case of one group, the Commencement Team,
there are definitely 'camps' comprised of different departments.
At least two members (the leader and myself) have no vested interest in
change and are there to attempt to facilitate the change and assist in
mapping the future process. The trouble is that the power relationships
won't permit a 'shared vision' of the process. Individuals wish to
be empowered to perform their own personal functions but don't want to
permit the empowerment of anyone else.
The really strange thing about this is that as these
people are doing this, time ticks along and they still aren't happy.
People can only empower themselves, they can't wait for someone to do it
for them.
Kreisberg, Seth, (1992). Transforming Power: Domination, Empowerment
and Education.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
Gender issues, diversity issues. I'm not sure
that I agree with everything Sleeter states in her article. We come
very very diverse backgrounds and it should be pretty obvious that these
backgrounds affect our view of life. All three authors address what
I see as this very basic issue. We are tribal, we commune with others
like ourselves for protection, shelter and a sense of belonging.
When we are together with others like ourselves we begin to further refine
the order into fat, skinny, tall and short. I mention the Dr Suess
story of the Sneetches in one of the papers I wrote for class and I think
the realtionship is true. We are most comfortable with others like
ourselves. But writers like Kreisberg attempt to remind us that there
is another way of looking at things.
We can truly get to the essence of relationships
as being issues of power. The choices are ours to make. In
my own situtation, I like to think that I don't regard issues of race or
gender, but I think about them consciously in an attempt to NOT make them
an issue. Does that mean that I am subliming my issues? Am
I denying race? While I certainly don't think that I'm successful
all of the time, I think that Sleeter does an injustice to those who feel
they are trying. While someone else may think that attempts being
made to integrate other cultures or races into the educational mix, it's
interesting that those who say we are wrong are accusing us of some of
the same things they do as a matter of course.
It seems to me that these areas are again related
to awareness. Change is difficult at anytime. Attempting to
radically change any large groups observations or views is surely going
to take much longer than many seem willing to understand. We've come
part of the way, there's much more to be done. But in order to have
people willing try to work toward change, it doesn't make sense to be accusatory
even if that's not what was intended.
In my past work in financial aid, I found in many
instances perceptions are difficult to work through but possible.
I've also found that in most instances, perceptions really tend to be attributed
to a group. We interact differently in one-to-one situations than we do
when dealing with groups as a whole. Is that just our way of mentally
catagorizing or does it bely some evil intent. I choose to think
that it's our minds (and enculturated) way of assimilating and sorting
data. Can this be adjusted? Certainly, one of the points of
education is to inform and instruct in new and novel ways. Issues
of morality or choices made are always more difficult to change.
We are all to a certain extent altruistic when there is no cost to ourselves
or those close to us. At the point that we have to give something
up for the good of others then we cease thinking of others and withdraw
into our own group.
There were interesting parallels in each article
related to the awareness of individuals and how that awareness permitted,
in the case of the Altenbaugh article, the very reason for selection of
females as teachers to be ultimately used against them when their employment
posed a threat to men. The parellel is there in the Goodman article
as well. People have a tendency to want to stay with what's comfortable
and are uneasy with change or difference. The trick is to understand
your shortcomings and to try to work to change your own perception and
by that hopefully affect another along the way.