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.