The Androgynous Collaborator

1. Did these students fulfill/defy traditional gender roles?  Is this role "reversal" part of their collaboration difficulties or not?

Before I answer, I would just like to clarify that this type of "gender defining" is not something that I support or particularly enjoy reading.  It is indeed interesting and probably good general guidelines, however one cannot take these "results" too seriously as each situation and individual are unique and not to be reacted to based on a scale of "masculinity/femininity".

In my opinion, I believe these students defied traditional gender roles, if we're speaking on extreme realms of fem./masc.  While the emails from the females (SAW) were perhaps more emotionally laden than the email from the male member, it was not distinctive.  This I can define as "role reversal", and perhaps might be a slight source of their collaboration difficulties.  If all the members were to just an "androgynous" approach to their collaboration efforts and discussed their emotions, goals, and concerns with open ears would help greatly.

2. Review several communications between you & your teammates.  Did you fulfill/defy gender roles? How so?

Overall, I cannot pick up definite signs of fem./masc. roles in any of my projects in this course.  I believe we all defied gender roles, as it always seemed to be an equally leading team effort.  All team members would send the initial contact/confirmation and work quite fairly and effectively.

3. Based on this observation and analysis, can you categorize yourself as an androgynous collaborator?  In what ways/why?

I believe that I can classify myself as an androgynous collaborator, because I can place equal emphasis on collaboration techniques between masc. and fem. characteristics, without overbalancing one side.  However, I will take this article to heart when I apply myself to "real world" situations outside of the classroom.  I have a feeling that it might have a different approach to consider. 

Email.

The Selfe article was an interesting read, as it dealt with the effects of consensus in a group as well as the role of pseudonyms on online collaboration.  The bulk of the article seemed to highlight the power struggles between men and women in face-to-face collaboration as well as online conversations.  While that matter does not seem to be of any importance in the four student emails, the matter itself is quite important and interesting nevertheless.

            The email from S was basically a long angry rant.  Aside from the distracting writing errors, the email itself was a long drawn-out declaration of how S had been wronged, and trying to defend their self.  It was like a personal journal entry.

            The email from A was somewhat shy and liberating to the writer apparently.  The writer seems to feel like the problems with the group are troubling, but not something that the writer should have to deal with to try to solve.  The use of the word “tolerance” says a lot about this writer.

            The email from W was just a long narrative of what happened.  The professor must have fallen asleep trying to read this!  It was funny to read W. speaking of having no time to waste, when this email was the longest out of the four.  W has good ideas, but this email is not effective in bringing those ideas out.  It was just a long play by play of the group’s troubles.

            The email from K was by far the better of the four.  It was short but informative.  The email was not a personal defense or rant about the toils of collaborating with the others.  K brings in good ideas, and presents questions to the professor in hopes of getting genuine help.

 

Email 1:

Morning Gordon!

 

Thank you for sending the images and memo draft!  I have put

four final images on the memo.  All we need to include are

our reflections, and I'll send it all in one form.

 

Happily awaiting your reflection,

 

Heidi Pak

 

Most of my emails this semester were short.  I thin this email was effective because it was brief but did not leave out any important information.  I believe I was clear, friendly, and overall effective.

 

Email 2:

Hey Sharon and Melanie,

 

I have just uploaded my letter on blogger as well.

As for a "schedule", I am not certain 100% as to how this

assignment is working.

Are we going to collaborate and submit a copy that is based

off all three of ours?

 

I think we should definitely try to turn in the copy (if

that is what it's supposed to be?) as quickly as possible.

 

Cheers,

Heidi Pak

 

This email was short as well.  I think I could have explained my confusion with the assignment and questions out a bit more thoroughly.  My email was also not decisive, but I would justify myself with the uncertainties with the project guidelines.

 

Email 3:

Krystal,

 

I read through your revisions, and liked how you got rid of

a lot of the filler.  I just changed a few words according

to Beth's suggestions.  I still feel like the memo needs

more technical information, but seeing that Beth hasn't

called it an issue, I think we're good on those details.

 

I think a shorter memo is key in this situation.

-       Heidi

This short email was effective I believe, because it was clear.  I presented what changes I made, and clarified as to the reasons why.  

Response to Burnett & Anderson Readings

I have run across similar topics presented in the Burnett and Anderson writings in several other classes.  As I am no master of collaborative writing, it was a good refresher.

Burnett brought up topics of three different types of conflicts within groups and 3 strategies toward more effective writing.  I think on top of the affective, procedural, and substantive conflicts that Burnett should have included a fourth conflict.  Sometimes, teams have the misfortune(?) of dealing with a combination of the three mentioned conflicts or components of each.  Each situation is unique even if the circumstances may feel similar.

In the Anderson reading, we were given guidelines to better group writing.  I think out of the many listed, a few of the most important points would be:  listening with interest and respect, inviting everyone to speak, and treating drafts as team property versus individual property.  It just takes a dose of courtesy and a few steps back to observe the whole project, in order to tackle the problems in the most efficient manner. 

Challenger Memo - Team Revised Draft 1 w/ Paragraph

TO:                       Distribution - Engineering and Managerial Services, National Air and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, Morton Thiokol, Inc.           

FROM:                        Krystal Miarecki & Heidi Pak

SUBJECT:              URGENT: Avoiding Disaster on STS 51-L (Challenger Shuttle) Mission

In regards to STS 51-L (Challenger Shuttle), we have identified a design problem with the SRM O-rings that, if not addressed, could result in a fatal mission.

Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are relatively new technology to us, as opposed to liquid-fueled systems.  As the Challenger will be the first astronaut-manned mission using SRBs, we cannot take any risks.

The problem we have run across lies in the O-rings.  At launch, the O-rings will lose their original shape due to motor pressurization.  While it is in the nature of the O-rings to return to its original shape, we have found that there are milliseconds in between the transformation of the O-rings that determine system failure or success. 

Furthermore, we have discovered that temperature affects the rate at which O-rings return to their original shape.  After numerous tests, we found that field joint secondary seals lifted off metal surface under the following conditions: 1) at 75° F lost contact for 2.4 seconds; and 2) at 50° F lost contact without re-establishing.  With our launch deadline set for January 27th, the temperatures have very little chance of being above 50 degrees.  

When dealing with extremely sensitive materials that determine success or failure in milliseconds, it is unethical to gamble with the seven astronauts' lives and the reputations of our three organizations.  Therefore, I urge the managers to consider postponing the launch date until further research is conducted and safe launching temperature has been reached.  

As funding is tight and deadlines are crucial, a public statement must be released regarding the crucial need for more research into the technology behind the O-rings, as well as supporting statements as to why we are relying on SRB versus liquid-fueled systems.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. 

 

With both our original memos, the direction we would be heading was pretty clear.  Krystal had the technical details down, and I had more of a people-friendly structure.  Taking both our memos stronger points, we combined the memo into a manner that emphasized details and tone of urgency.  The task itself was pretty simple, and the produced memo is pretty solid in my opinion. 

NASA - Memo 1

(The heading is left vague, because I am not 100% sure who to address is to and from.)

TO:                         NASA

FROM:                        Heidi Pak 

SUBJECT:            Avoiding Disasters

 

In regards to STS 51-L, more commonly known as the Challenger Shuttle, there is a dangerous design problem that can become fatal.

Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) are relatively new technology to us, as opposed to liquid-fueled systems.  As the Challenger will be the first astronaut-manned mission using SRB, we cannot take any risks.

The problem we have run across lies in the O-rings.  At launch, the O-rings will lose its original shape due to the pressures.  However, it is in the nature of the O-rings to return to their original shapes.  After numerous tests, we have found that there are milliseconds in between this transformation of the O-rings, that determine system failure or success.

O-rings return to their original shapes quicker in warmer temperatures, as opposed to colder ones.  With our launch deadline set for January 28, the temperatures have very little chance of being above 50 degrees.  When dealing with extremely sensitive materials that determine success or failure in milliseconds, it is unethical to gamble with the seven astronauts' lives and the reputations of our three organizations.

I urge the managers to consider a launch date further into the year, when temperatures outside can be reliably predicted.  

As funding is tight and deadlines are crucial, a public statement must be released regarding the crucial need for more research into the technology behind the O-rings, as well as supporting statements as to why we are relying on SRB versus liquid-fueled systems.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. 

Recommendation Letter - Analysis

After a quick week and a half, we have finally completed our recommendation letter!

I worked with Sharon and Melanie, both very pleasant and active group members.

Over the course of the holiday weekend, I think we all were busy and occupied with other activities, trying to fit in as much as we all could during precious few sessions. 

However, we got a lot done in a small handful of emails we corresponded back and forth!

With such excellent team members, it was really quite a (dare I say..) easy and non-stressful experience.  

Our first drafts all had their positive and negative points, and we only took the positive points to draft a complete recommendation letter.

Then, we used the negative points to build more positive points. 

In the end, a short and simple, yet effective, piece. 

Recommendation Letter (Draft 1)

To: Robert Hansen, Network Design 

From: Heidi Pak

Date: 20 June, 2009 

RE: Recommendation Letter for Second Line Engineer - Bill Finch 

Dear Robert, 

As per your request, it is my pleasure to write a recommendation letter on behalf of Bill Finch.  Bill is a personal acquaintance, and one who I know will be a positive addition to Network Design.  

Network Design has a great emphasis on community development.  Bill Finch is extremely active in his community, and enjoys participating in the Lions Club and the YMCA Board of Directors.  He naturally exudes a healthy reputation for putting the community first. 

As for the position as a second-line engineer, Bill is ready for the career move.  He leads the highest ranking crew at his current occupation.  While it would be unethical of me to not mention a few tiffs with co-workers Bill came across these past few months, he understands and respects the importance of team work.  With the health issues his wife is under, Bill is eager for a new job.

The second-line engineer position at Network Design, is one that Bill Finch can responsibly and exceptionally fulfill.  

Thank you for your time and consideration, and please feel free to direct any further questions to my office. 

Sincerely, 

Heidi Pak