Learning set meeting 5, was held on the 13th February over msn over a period of 2 hours. Those in attendance were myself, Dawn Sojkowski, Charon Balrey and Robert Kemp.
I found the msn meeting to be quite successful as we achieved the our required aims. However due to the its impersonal nature, sometimes I could read the full meaning behind the text, whereas if it had been face to face, body language and tone of voice would have helped me decipher this.
We have decided for the next meeting (which will be held after reading week) to have completed learning modules 2.2 and 2.3 and to have discussed some of the portfolio questions on the cuonline discussion board.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Essay Plan 4
I completed the last of the four essay plans and have now finished the coursework side of the course. However, the themes that run throughout will still be discussed in our learning set.
Essay 4 looked at political action, power and the 'common sense' notions. Tina wished us to look at how social constructionsists contend these ideas and how it could help in the workplace.
A considerable amount of content could be included within this.
First, I looked at discourses as Burr (2007) explains that all interactions with the world, be it conversations, meanings, representations, construct a persons truth.
She believes that the 'common sense' notions are made when a majority of people believe in a particular discourse.
The 'common sense'/ conventional view of power is that it is the powerful person who holds a characteristic within them that makes them powerful. Social Constructionsists would argue this could not be possible as there is no evidence to suggest a 'personality' exists.
Looking at power, Gergen believes there are 2 types; power over and power to. Conventional arguments would suggest that people and institutions have power over people.
However Michael Foucault suggests that the people who have the power to communicate discourses have the power to change them. He rejects the idea of power over.
Political action could be seen as 'the power to bring about change', it challenges the taken-for-granted 'truths' that people accept about the world or within the workplace.
The learning set group will be discussing some of these themes at a later date.
Essay 4 looked at political action, power and the 'common sense' notions. Tina wished us to look at how social constructionsists contend these ideas and how it could help in the workplace.
A considerable amount of content could be included within this.
First, I looked at discourses as Burr (2007) explains that all interactions with the world, be it conversations, meanings, representations, construct a persons truth.
She believes that the 'common sense' notions are made when a majority of people believe in a particular discourse.
The 'common sense'/ conventional view of power is that it is the powerful person who holds a characteristic within them that makes them powerful. Social Constructionsists would argue this could not be possible as there is no evidence to suggest a 'personality' exists.
Looking at power, Gergen believes there are 2 types; power over and power to. Conventional arguments would suggest that people and institutions have power over people.
However Michael Foucault suggests that the people who have the power to communicate discourses have the power to change them. He rejects the idea of power over.
Political action could be seen as 'the power to bring about change', it challenges the taken-for-granted 'truths' that people accept about the world or within the workplace.
The learning set group will be discussing some of these themes at a later date.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Seminar 4 - The case of the invited trespasser
Happy New Year! 2009 is here and the time has come to thaw out from the ice cold Xmas that has passed and actually get on with some work.
Seminar 4 was interesting to myself more in terms of my ability to understand the content from an alternative perspective rather than the actual content itself. I surprised myself at how natural it is becoming to question the taken-for-granted within a piece of writing and try to look it from many angles.
The case of the invited trespasser enabled us to put managing change into action (somewhat). It described a difficult situation that had formed between a younger manager and a more established employee. We were tasked to alleviate the situation and asked to present how we would approach this:
Where: Pub
When: Afterwork
Opening conversation: Offering to get in the first round - a peace offering. Then addressing the pitooiuoroblems without blaming anyone.
Myself and Dawn justified the informal pub setting as it was away from work and also decided to set it afterwork so that the disgruntled guy could have time to reflect on the conversation, rather than have influencing opinions inflicted on him from his colleagues.
It was interesting also to look back to my own personal experience, which is related to the first seminar, regarding a similar situation I had on placement.
I do not think even if I had tried to sit down and address the situation with Mr X it would have made a difference. Mr X had the same problems with the majority of people in the organisation (except of course for the people had the ability to fire him!). Even though I made an extra effort of nicetys (knowing thouroughly well that he did not deserve them) Mr X was still rude and obnoxious.
This leads me to question: can some people be so bitter and stuck in their ways that it is out of your power to improve the situation?
The social constructionist argument would argue, no, a personality is not fixed, but in my experience of this situation, i would beg to differ.
Seminar 4 was interesting to myself more in terms of my ability to understand the content from an alternative perspective rather than the actual content itself. I surprised myself at how natural it is becoming to question the taken-for-granted within a piece of writing and try to look it from many angles.
The case of the invited trespasser enabled us to put managing change into action (somewhat). It described a difficult situation that had formed between a younger manager and a more established employee. We were tasked to alleviate the situation and asked to present how we would approach this:
Where: Pub
When: Afterwork
Opening conversation: Offering to get in the first round - a peace offering. Then addressing the pitooiuoroblems without blaming anyone.
Myself and Dawn justified the informal pub setting as it was away from work and also decided to set it afterwork so that the disgruntled guy could have time to reflect on the conversation, rather than have influencing opinions inflicted on him from his colleagues.
It was interesting also to look back to my own personal experience, which is related to the first seminar, regarding a similar situation I had on placement.
I do not think even if I had tried to sit down and address the situation with Mr X it would have made a difference. Mr X had the same problems with the majority of people in the organisation (except of course for the people had the ability to fire him!). Even though I made an extra effort of nicetys (knowing thouroughly well that he did not deserve them) Mr X was still rude and obnoxious.
This leads me to question: can some people be so bitter and stuck in their ways that it is out of your power to improve the situation?
The social constructionist argument would argue, no, a personality is not fixed, but in my experience of this situation, i would beg to differ.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Seminar 3
Seminar 3 introduced an alternative perspective to problem solving.
It used the traditional method of identifying problems and solutions as a basis for understanding the nature of the problem.
It then expanded to include; how is the problem being sustained. This led the group to try to identify the key factors which made the problem a longstanding one.
It was interesting to discover the root cause of a situation from a different point of view.
It used the traditional method of identifying problems and solutions as a basis for understanding the nature of the problem.
It then expanded to include; how is the problem being sustained. This led the group to try to identify the key factors which made the problem a longstanding one.
It was interesting to discover the root cause of a situation from a different point of view.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Learning Set Meeting 3
Monday 24th November was the third learning set meeting which went well.
After addressing several points on the agenda, the group went through the learning module Positioning: the discursive production of selves.
I found it helpful to go through the questions with the group as there were several elements that I did not take into condsideration.
Question 5 asked about 'categories' what they are and what the implications of fitting into more than 1 would be.
I used the example of a transexual to illustrate the implications of a person fitting into many categories, which both Charon and Harry noted this could only be a problem if the categories they fit into are mutually exclusive/ contradictory.
From the discussion we concluded that categories could be seen as a person's version of truth. For instance the category one person may think they fit into, may be completly different to the category another person may put them into.
Harry inputted a valid assumption about categories. Can they change? For which Charon and I were in agreement that they can change and are a representation of the culture at that moment in time. I suggested just by the fact of calling some a transexual has therefore categorised them, which wouldn't have been the case 100 years ago.
Question 7 threw up a disagreement of the interpretation of the text. Charon and I found that our explanations of the questions contradicted each other, however we both based our reasoning on information from the article.
Charons explanation of the difference between role and positioning said that a role is opened up by a speaker and positioning is the stance which the other speaker positions themselves within the discourse.
My exaplanation used role as a subject position which is made available through a discourse and positioning is how they position themselves within that particular discourse.
For the meeting next week we are to complete the final question of the positioning article, but focus on essay 2, for which I am going to prepare an essay plan for.
After addressing several points on the agenda, the group went through the learning module Positioning: the discursive production of selves.
I found it helpful to go through the questions with the group as there were several elements that I did not take into condsideration.
Question 5 asked about 'categories' what they are and what the implications of fitting into more than 1 would be.
I used the example of a transexual to illustrate the implications of a person fitting into many categories, which both Charon and Harry noted this could only be a problem if the categories they fit into are mutually exclusive/ contradictory.
From the discussion we concluded that categories could be seen as a person's version of truth. For instance the category one person may think they fit into, may be completly different to the category another person may put them into.
Harry inputted a valid assumption about categories. Can they change? For which Charon and I were in agreement that they can change and are a representation of the culture at that moment in time. I suggested just by the fact of calling some a transexual has therefore categorised them, which wouldn't have been the case 100 years ago.
Question 7 threw up a disagreement of the interpretation of the text. Charon and I found that our explanations of the questions contradicted each other, however we both based our reasoning on information from the article.
Charons explanation of the difference between role and positioning said that a role is opened up by a speaker and positioning is the stance which the other speaker positions themselves within the discourse.
My exaplanation used role as a subject position which is made available through a discourse and positioning is how they position themselves within that particular discourse.
For the meeting next week we are to complete the final question of the positioning article, but focus on essay 2, for which I am going to prepare an essay plan for.
Learning Set 2 Meeting (unable to attend)
I was unable to attend the second learning set meeting due to being ill, but I have caught up with the rest of the group and gone through what I missed.
They looked at the 'What's going on' questions which identified taken-for-granted assumptions in people's conversations.
I must admit I am struggling to get my head around this and will pay it some attention over the nect week.
They looked at the 'What's going on' questions which identified taken-for-granted assumptions in people's conversations.
I must admit I am struggling to get my head around this and will pay it some attention over the nect week.
Monday, November 10, 2008
10th November Learning Set Meeting
The first learning set meeting went reasonably well. We have all agreed to meet on Mondays at 2 after our strategic management lecture as we are all in the vacinity of each other and the library.
We set several objectives that we wish to achieve from the learning set over the course of the year:
We set several objectives that we wish to achieve from the learning set over the course of the year:
- Understand the course content.
- Review the reading activities.
- Provide a support network.
- The stories under What's going on? learning set activities.
- Questions from Postioning: The discursive production of selves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)