我们,我们自己和我们:关于社会(自我)分类的思考

M. Rohde, D. Shaffer
{"title":"我们,我们自己和我们:关于社会(自我)分类的思考","authors":"M. Rohde, D. Shaffer","doi":"10.1145/1052829.1052835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a recent Workshop on community-based learning at the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS 2004), one persistent theme was the variety of terms used to describe collections of people (group, community, network, collective) and components of interaction (culture, identity, collaboration, cooperation) in group learning activities. Here, we describe some of the thinking that emerged in those discussions, not as a comprehensive literature review or completely elaborated socio-cultural theory, but rather as an invitation to further discussion. We suggest that a group is the most generic and general social category: all of the analytical units in the literature on collective learning - teams, social networks, and communities - are groups. We argue that these other terms have additional structural characteristics that make them distinct subsets of the generic term group. For example, a team is a group with a common task, a network is a group with strong social ties, and a community is a group with a shared culture. We propose a two-dimensional space of social organizations characterized by shared culture and shared interaction, and suggest both individuals and collectives show a developmental history through the space of collectives, moving from loose group affiliation to increasing identification with, development of, and participation in shared interactions within a shared culture. This analysis suggests, we argue, that: (a) tools to support \"collaboration\" may need different affordances for different kinds of collectives; (b) understanding different kinds of collectives requires different methodologies; and (c) culture plays a prominent role in the space of collectives we describe, and thus, we argue, should play a significant role in the analysis of any community. We hope that this brief discussion will lead to further work on the social entities within which group learning takes place, on the processes of learning in such settings, and on the technologies that can support such processes.","PeriodicalId":390207,"journal":{"name":"ACM Siggroup Bulletin","volume":"128 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Us, ourselves, and we: thoughts about social (self-) categorization\",\"authors\":\"M. Rohde, D. Shaffer\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1052829.1052835\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a recent Workshop on community-based learning at the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS 2004), one persistent theme was the variety of terms used to describe collections of people (group, community, network, collective) and components of interaction (culture, identity, collaboration, cooperation) in group learning activities. Here, we describe some of the thinking that emerged in those discussions, not as a comprehensive literature review or completely elaborated socio-cultural theory, but rather as an invitation to further discussion. We suggest that a group is the most generic and general social category: all of the analytical units in the literature on collective learning - teams, social networks, and communities - are groups. We argue that these other terms have additional structural characteristics that make them distinct subsets of the generic term group. For example, a team is a group with a common task, a network is a group with strong social ties, and a community is a group with a shared culture. We propose a two-dimensional space of social organizations characterized by shared culture and shared interaction, and suggest both individuals and collectives show a developmental history through the space of collectives, moving from loose group affiliation to increasing identification with, development of, and participation in shared interactions within a shared culture. This analysis suggests, we argue, that: (a) tools to support \\\"collaboration\\\" may need different affordances for different kinds of collectives; (b) understanding different kinds of collectives requires different methodologies; and (c) culture plays a prominent role in the space of collectives we describe, and thus, we argue, should play a significant role in the analysis of any community. We hope that this brief discussion will lead to further work on the social entities within which group learning takes place, on the processes of learning in such settings, and on the technologies that can support such processes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":390207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Siggroup Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"128 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Siggroup Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1052829.1052835\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Siggroup Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1052829.1052835","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

摘要

在第六届国际学习科学会议(ICLS 2004)最近举行的以社区为基础的学习研讨会上,一个持久的主题是用于描述群体学习活动中人们的集合(群体、社区、网络、集体)和互动组成部分(文化、身份、协作、合作)的各种术语。在这里,我们描述了这些讨论中出现的一些想法,不是作为全面的文献回顾或完全阐述的社会文化理论,而是作为进一步讨论的邀请。我们认为群体是最通用的社会范畴:所有关于集体学习的文献中的分析单位——团队、社会网络和社区——都是群体。我们认为,这些其他术语具有额外的结构特征,使它们成为通用术语组的不同子集。例如,团队是具有共同任务的群体,网络是具有强大社会联系的群体,社区是具有共享文化的群体。我们提出了一个以共享文化和共享互动为特征的二维社会组织空间,并认为个人和集体都通过集体空间展现了一个发展的历史,从松散的群体隶属关系到在共享文化中对共享互动的日益认同、发展和参与。我们认为,这一分析表明:(a)支持“协作”的工具可能需要不同类型的集体的不同支持;(b)了解不同种类的集体需要不同的方法;(c)文化在我们所描述的集体空间中起着突出的作用,因此,我们认为,文化应该在任何社区的分析中发挥重要作用。我们希望这一简短的讨论将导致在群体学习发生的社会实体、在这种环境中学习的过程以及支持这种过程的技术方面的进一步工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Us, ourselves, and we: thoughts about social (self-) categorization
In a recent Workshop on community-based learning at the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS 2004), one persistent theme was the variety of terms used to describe collections of people (group, community, network, collective) and components of interaction (culture, identity, collaboration, cooperation) in group learning activities. Here, we describe some of the thinking that emerged in those discussions, not as a comprehensive literature review or completely elaborated socio-cultural theory, but rather as an invitation to further discussion. We suggest that a group is the most generic and general social category: all of the analytical units in the literature on collective learning - teams, social networks, and communities - are groups. We argue that these other terms have additional structural characteristics that make them distinct subsets of the generic term group. For example, a team is a group with a common task, a network is a group with strong social ties, and a community is a group with a shared culture. We propose a two-dimensional space of social organizations characterized by shared culture and shared interaction, and suggest both individuals and collectives show a developmental history through the space of collectives, moving from loose group affiliation to increasing identification with, development of, and participation in shared interactions within a shared culture. This analysis suggests, we argue, that: (a) tools to support "collaboration" may need different affordances for different kinds of collectives; (b) understanding different kinds of collectives requires different methodologies; and (c) culture plays a prominent role in the space of collectives we describe, and thus, we argue, should play a significant role in the analysis of any community. We hope that this brief discussion will lead to further work on the social entities within which group learning takes place, on the processes of learning in such settings, and on the technologies that can support such processes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reflexivity in e-science: virtual communities and research institutions The engine of the underground: the Elite-Kiddie divide Hacking human: data-archaeology and surveillance in social networks MOO: revival or extinction? Small pornographies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1