DPLS 773sp10 The Emergence of Self & Group Process
DPLS 773 - The Emergence of Self & Group Process
Spring 2010 3 credits
Professor: Chris Francovich, Ed.D.
Office Phone: 509-313-3592
E-mail: francovich@gonzaga.edu
Office hours: Please call for an appointment
Class Logistics:
Hybrid Course: 16 hours Face to Face/16 hours online
Room: TBA
Face to Face Dates: 1/22 (6-10 pm), 3/13 (8 am - 5 pm) , 4/9 (noon-4 pm)
Course Overview
This course is concerned with thinking about, experiencing, and observing individuals (the self) and groups in novel ways. The basic assumptions and frameworks of the course are built on a relational and process philosophy exemplified by A.N. Whitehead, G.H. Mead, John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, and others. These perspectives are articulated by Gregory Bateson, Ralph Stacey, Nicholas Rescher, Karen Barad, Robert Cooper, Mustafa Emirbayer and current scholars working with social identity and self categorization theories.
It is my hope and intention that students will come to appreciate an alternative framework for interpreting concepts of self and the experience of the self in community or groups. This alternative framework is contrasted with the modernist, substantialist, social constructivist, and psychoanalytic/humanistic views of the separate self with roots in the inevitable dualism of self and other. This perspective has significant implications for definitions, descriptions, behaviors, and expectations of and for leaders.
Postmodern knowledge of group process will also be contrasted with modernist theories and ideas of groups and organizations. This knowledge of groups will problematize traditional belief structures of collectives as either being formed by people or that people (or selves) are formed by collectives.
This course is also an inquiry into the paradox of the individual and the group. Recent theorizing has demonstrated the insufficiency of the dominant Cartesian/Kantian/Cognitivist framework that generally assumes the derivative and secondary nature of thought/minds/selves to brain function and causal material processes. This framework continues to support and promulgate habits of mind, research methodologies, educational and social policy, and leadership theory that can be seen as fundamentally inimical to ecological balance and social justice. The purpose of this course is to develop both the theoretical background of the problem as well as a contemporary response to it. A primary requirement for taking this course is the willingness to entertain ideas that may destabilize the traditional western world view.
This course is offered as a hybrid of face to face and online technologies. The face to face component will involve lecture, large and small group dialogue, and group presentations. The online part of the course will involve the crafting of numerous reflection papers and responses to reflection papers. There is also an expectation that participants will engage in self-directed asynchronous dialogue via the discussion space afforded by Blackboard. The choice of the Hybrid format for this course is based on the need for and the expectation of a deep and sustained focus on the readings with substantial effort made during the reading to articulate and communicate emergent ideas.
Course Hopes and Aims
- To explore the basic idea that ‘reciprocal influence processes' underlie leadership activity and descriptions of leadership activity.
- To develop a sound foundation in the basic vocabulary and concepts of process metaphysics
- To understand and apply the process perspective to epistemology
- To understand and apply conceptual frameworks articulated by Bateson.
- To appreciate an expanded sense of the Self and its relationship to consciousness, sociality, and practice
- To stimulate and stretch our thinking about the self and group process in leadership studies
- To understand and apply appropriate research methodologies to perspectives emerging from a process and relational view of phenomena
Assignments, & Grading
Please check Blackboard regularly for posted readings and copies of my reading notes. This course relies heavily on Blackboard technology and your ability to access, navigate, and manage the interface and all course assignments. More complete instructions, pacing, and clarifications will be available shortly before commencement of the course.
- Read all materials and complete all Blackboard discussion prompts & responses (10%)
- (Face to Face meeting #1)
- o Complete reading notes (Post to Blackboard prior to 1st meeting) and a short (3 page) essay on the key themes from Rescher's introduction to process philosophy. See Blackboard for specific assignments and writing criteria for both course notes and course papers. (10% of grade)
- (Online Module #1 - 25% of grade)
- o Read Mind & Nature by Gregory Bateson & complete individual & group assignments on chapters from the text (see criteria for this assignment on Blackboard)
- o Read pp. 1-174 of Individuality and the group by Postmes & Jetten & complete short reflection papers and discussion posts related to these first 9 chapters (see see criteria for this assignment on Blackboard)
- o Read pp. 104-174 of Process Metaphysicsby Nicholas Rescher - complete reading notes and post (see see criteria for this assignment on Blackboard).
- (Face to Face meeting #2 )
- o 1st Group Project - Present assigned chapters out of Bateson. See criteria for this assignment on Blackboard) and face to face group discussion for more details. (March 13) (10%)
- (Online Module #2- 25% of grade) - Read Stacey (all)
- o Each participant to post a separate response to each of Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 (see criteria for this assignment on Blackboard)
- o Post a response to 2 of the responses in the discussion forum and respond to at least 2 of your colleagues posts on your writing. (see criteria for this assignment on Blackboard)
- o Engage in asynchronous group discussion
- (Face to Face meeting #3)
- o Come prepared to sum up Stacey and work in both large and small group formats.
- Portfolios of all your reflection papers posted online as well as other relevant production of text should be collected in a Word document and sent to me at the end of the term along with your final paper.
- Final paper. Due April 18th . 18 - 22 pages (excluding title pages) paper in APA format. Please see Blackboard for paper criteria (30% of grade)
- Late or incomplete papers or assignments, or missing 1 or more face to face sessions will likely result in grade reduction and/or an incomplete.
Expectations and Assessment
Assessment of doctoral work in leadership studies is problematic for me. Interdisciplinary work dealing with complex and sometimes contested theories and concepts requires (from my perspective) a tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, and contingency. I am also struck by the need for a high degree of self-directed behavior on the part of doctoral students and candidates. I would like my teaching style, assessment policy, and rubrics to support and facilitate self-direction.
However, behind my questions about assessment and uncertainty in evaluating anyone in an absolute manner there does reside (in my view) a set of skills that serve to hold and shape work with language in a complex world. As mentioned above self-direction is a key component of doing good work at the doctoral level. It also suggests normative and ethical components that the DPLS is keen to continually point out and facilitate. At a minimum those values reflect respect for one's self and others, a cultivated desire to serve and hold others in a good and kind light, and a self-examination of one's own beliefs and assumptions as they affect interaction and relationship at all levels.
I also believe we need a grammar, syntax, and semantics of clarity, coherence, depth, and breadth. My assumption at the beginning of the term is that all of the students in this class possess the requisite skills, talents, and propensities needed to be clear, cogent, and complete. I admit that the standards I refer to are objectively stated and subjectively enacted. My assessment will be based on the quality and content of expressed thought as exhibited in both written assignments and classroom presentations and participation.
Grading Criteria for Written Work (adapted from the DPLS Academic papers rubric)
Content Criteria:
The content of papers should reflect the level and style of content in readings and discussions. There is an expectation that doctoral students will reach outside of their comfort zone in terms of appropriation of ideas, concepts, and frameworks. The substance of papers and other writings will be weighed against the general level of discourse in class meetings and the style and density of expression of the readings.
Thought and Expression Criteria
Student writing should raise vital questions or issues, formulating them clearly and precisely. I will be looking for evidence of breadth and depth and the insightful, in-depth analysis of complex ideas. Main points should be developed and supported with relevant information and references that are appropriately incorporated.
The organization and logic of your writing is critical. The expectation is for well focused, well organized, and well reasoned conclusions. The writing should flow with the reader not getting lost or having to work to determine what you are saying.
There is also an expectation that your writing/thinking has an open and inclusive character when exploring alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as appropriate, their assumptions, implications, and/or practical consequences.
Technical Criteria
Your writing should be clear and demonstrate a high level of vocabulary through careful word choice. Sentences should be constructed skillfully and purposefully. Transitions between paragraphs and sections are important and will evaluated for their efficacy in weaving your concepts, themes, and purposes together. Summaries and conclusions are also vital elements of good writing and will be evaluated based on their appropriateness and effectiveness.
Of course grammar, punctuation, and spelling are expected to be flawless. Careful proof reading of your paper is a basic expectation.
Papers, unless otherwise noted are to be completed in APA style. References should be cited properly within the text and a complete reference list must be provided. Appropriate use of headings will also be noted.
Point/Grade correspondence:
95-100% = A
90-94.99% = A-
85-90% = B
80-84.99% = B-
Required Texts:
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN: 1-57273-434-5
Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2006). Individuality and the group : Advances in social identity. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE. ISBN: 10 1-4129-0321-3
Rescher, N. (1996). Process metaphysics: An introduction to process philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN: 0-7914-2818-4
Stacey, R. D. (2003). Complexity and group processes : A radically social understanding of individuals. Hove ; New York: Brunner-Routledge ISBN: 1-58391-920-1
Other Required Readings (also available on Blackboard):
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281-317; 281.
Cooper, R. (2005). Peripheral vision: Relationality. Organization Studies (01708406), 26(11), 1689-1710.
Selected reading of Karen Barad - to be announced.
Selected reading of A.N. Whitehead - to be announced
Other References
Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway : Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Barnes, B. (2000). Understanding agency: Social theory and responsible action. London: Sage Publications.
Barnes, B. (2001). The Macro/Micro problem and the problem of structure and agency. In G. Ritzer, & B. Smart (Eds.), Handbook of social theory (pp. 339-352; 26). London: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self : Gender, community, and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.
Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
Brothers, D. (1995). Falling backwards: An exploration of trust and self-experience. New York: W.W. Norton
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Regency.
Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
Griffin, D. R. (1989). Archetypal process : Self and divine in Whitehead, Jung, and Hillman. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press.
Heider, F. (1926). Thing and medium. New York: International Universities Press.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2000). The self we live by: Narrative identity in a postmodern world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ingold, T. (1991). Becoming persons: Consciousness and sociality in human evolution. Cultural Dynamics, 4(3), 355-378.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mead, G. H. (2002). The philosophy of the present. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books.
Mead, G. H., Morris, C. W., Brewster, J. M., Joint, Dunham, A. M., & Miller, D. L. (1938). The philosophy of the act. Chicago: Ill., University of Chicago Press.
Reed, E. S. (1998). From soul to mind: The emergence of psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to William James. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
Reed, E. S., Neisser, U., & Fivush, R. (1994). Perception is to self as memory is to selves. In The remembering self: Construction and accuracy in the self-narrative. (pp. 278-292) Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.
Siegel, D. J. (2007). The mindful brain : Reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.
Stacey, R. D. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. New York: Routledge.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. New York: The Free Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1938). Modes of Thought. New York: The Free Press
