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.

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.

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.

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:

• Understand the course content.
• Review the reading activities.
• Provide a support network.

The activities that we intend to have looked through by next weeks meetings are;

• The stories under What's going on? learning set activities.
• Questions from Postioning: The discursive production of selves.

The group will meet up next Monday and discuss our findings ... until then.

First Meeting Cancelled

The meeting that was arranged for Wednesday 29th was cancelled due to only 3 of the members were available. We have rescheduled this for next week, but for the time being I will have a look at the module web content questions relating to the topics that have been covered in lecture.

Start of the Learning Set

A group of us in 301bus Managing Change have started a Learning Set for which we will hold meetings (we hope fortnightly) to discuss issues around the module, ideas and the social experiments with have been trying out.

The learning set consists of:

Sarah Roberts (Myself)
Dawn Sojkowski
Robert Kemp
Charon Balrey
Harry Makinson

Our first meeting is being held Wednesday 29th October and I will post summaries of what has been said and how it has affected me.

Coursework 1

The hand in for coursework was today, but I felt that what I had wrote up until yesterday morning was a pile of twaddle, so I started right from the beginning again yesterday!
The topic of the coursework was "a confident person can be nervous in a job interview", so i took the main arguement within it to be between an essentialist perspective and a social constructionist point of view.
Up until a few days ago I was really struggling to get my head around the idea of social constructionism, but its beginning to become alot clearer, largely becuase alot of reading had to be done for this first piece of coursework.
Many aspects were discussed, but one which I found particularly interesting was the relational process and the idea of act-supplement. Where one person initiated an act, such as waving at someone they know, and the other person involved in the interaction will supplement the act in response, by either for example, waving back or saying hello.
I am starting to draw paralells between the theory and my life.
Today I was examining act-supplement between my friends and am understanding that the way in which I respond to their acts (or vice versa) determines the direction of the conversation.

I am hoping that the learning set is going to start to become more active and if no one has suggested anything by Monday I will propose that we start looking at some of the activities on the module web.

Random Thought

Something a friend of mine was talking about made me think about this:

If social constructionists believe that a personality is not stable and fixed, what explanation is there for an addictive personality?

After thinking about it, positioning believes that we shouldn't talk about people as personalities, as it really blames people's behaviour on the set of characteristics they have in their personality.
Thinking in terms of positioning an addictive personality would not exist because people are different in the positions they occupy. This means that someone who may be addicted has the opportunity to change themselves.

Seminar 1 - Personality Clashes

The seminar group I'm a part of is interesting as they want to get involved in as much as I do. It's nice that it is a smaller group of 3 and that theyunderstand that to do well you have to get involved as much as possible.

The seminar looked at 'personality clashes' and Tina asked us to write down a time which we believe we have experienced a 'personality clash' with someone, what happened and how it was resolved.
We then had to pass our problem to the other people in the seminar group who wrote advice for how they would have solved the 'personality clash'.

It was then explained that social constructionists would not believe in personality clashes. This is because when people accept a personality clash for the cause of a problem they are absolving themseleves of any responsibility to change the situation.

In simpler terms it is saying: "I am the way I am, he/she is the way he/she is".

For example, in my situation with a work colleague who was rude and unhelpful to myself for a short notice delivery, instead of viewing it as a personality clash, I should have questioned, why is MR X being awkward.
In that respect my answer would have been, Mr X is being awkward, becuase I have not given him enough notice to arrange a short notice delivery. Rather than blaming him for not being prepared, I should have done more to change the situation to get the result I wanted.

Thoughts on Lecture 1

The first lecture this week was based around individualism and Positioning, its origins and how it implicates each person in their everyday lives.

Tina introduced the concept of a multi faceted personality vs a fixed one. It has allowed me to question the very nature of a personality. I have always thought of a personality as being traits that a person possesses, but the very idea of a multiple personality insinuates that a person will act and display different traits to the different company they keep. For example I will act very differently with my friends, than I would if I am at work. I would perhaps hold back on the things I would say to work colleagues, and therefore they will hold a completelty different view of my personality than my friends.
My friends may say that I am out-going, spontaneous and randomly creative, whereas my work colleagues may hold the opinion that I am hard working, conscientious and not so out-going.

I now question the idea of individualism and am more inclined to positioning. Where people are defined as the positions they occupy. It has allowed me to understand that I am continuously changing as a result of the people I meet and the conversations I hold.

From gaining this knowledge and accepting that I have a multi-faceted personality, I am not the same person as I was yesterday, nor will I be the next day or the one after that.