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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)