Published on

collab circles notes

Summary of Stages

| | 1. Formation | 2. Rebellion | 3. Quest & Creative Work | 4. Collective Action | 5. Disintegration & Individuation | 6. Reunion | | ----------------------- | ----------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | Network Structure | Radial | Dense, centered on charismatic leader | Moderately polarized; collaborative pairs | Dense, centered on executive manager | Fragmented | Temporarily dense | | Emergent roles | Gatekeeper, novices | Charismatic leader, cork, lightning rod, tyrant, scapegoat, peacemaker | Conservative & radical boundary markers, center coalition, collaborative pairs | Executive manager, peace maker | Roles discarded; individuated selves | Alumni organizer, revived informal roles | | Types of Social Support | Companionship, validation of self-concept | Resolution of ambivalence; courage to rebel; buffering pressures to conform; exchange of economic, social, and cultural capital | Instrumental intimacy; strengthening internal cohesiveness through mirroring and servicing as idealized selfobject; sharing cognitive processes, skills, and half-formed ideas; creating new ideas, critiquing current work | Goal setting, planning, monitoring progress, finding resources, buffering setback | Support during personal crisis | Reaffirmation of value of shared vision and each other’s work | | Distinguishing process | Socializing in public settinqs | Ritualized meetings in set place | Creative work in pairs; exchanging works in progress,, clarifying and integrating vision in group meetings | Collective project to win public support; interdependent division of labor coordinated by executive manager; increasing conflict | working alone; individualizing shared vision; conflict over ownership of ideas, authorship, and recognition | Reminiscing, constructing history |

Stages of Collaborative Circles

  1. Formation
    1. Circles form in places with prolonged socialization, slow and uncertain mobility, limited mentorship, frequent peer interactions, and a set of shared values and aspirations that led the founding members to gravitate towards a “magnet place”: Collaborative circles are more likely to form in occupational networks where socialization is prolonged, mobility is slow and uncertain, access to mentors is limited, and peers interact frequently with one another… In the formation stage, the members may be no more than acquaintances who happen to be in the same place at the same time. Although it may seem that they met by chance, it is likely that their shared values and aspirations led them to gravitate towards a “magnet place.” By magnet place I mean an art studio, a laboratory, an artist community, a hospital, or some other place where people value the expertise and practice the skills the prospective members hope to acquire.
    2. Circles are built from rebellious founding stock — and may not be rising rapidly in their field: “Collaborative circles usually do not form among people on the fast track. As several writers have suggested (e.g., Kanter 1976; Bourdieu 1993), those who rise rapidly in a field are usually focused on winning the approval of established authorities in their discipline. Because they are more comfortable with authorities, they are likely to be proteges of an established mentor, and their commitment to the mentor often is stronger than their commitments to their peers. Rather than form a rebellious circle and create a new vision, proteges often reaffirm or elaborate the visions of their mentors.”
      1. Circles are “most likely to form in a magnet place where high-status masters are gathered, but within the valleys on the periphery of that network. Highly ambitious, talented novices who are attracted to a magnet place but find themselves cut off from prestigious mentors are more likely to turn to their peers for support and guidance… In weighing the rewards and costs of courting and working with a mentor as compared to those they find in working with their friends, circle members find commitment to their friends more promising, so they choose their friends.” p 267
    3. Circles are built between homogeneous peers with egalitarian relationships: “Like most friendships, collaborative circles are usually formed by persons of relatively equal status who possess relatively equal resources. With relative equality in economic, social, and cultural capital, all members are able to keep pace in the interaction and maintain balanced exchanges. One common characteristic of successful circles is open, egalitarian relationships among members. When the distribution of resources among members is unequal, it is more difficult for them to maintain equality in their exchanges.” P20? “In the initial encounters of members in successful collaborative circles, usually all members are roughly equal in their possession of [economic, social, and cultural] capital… Although some may have more economic capital, others more cultural capital, and still others more social capital, circle members are able to trade off one type of currency for another, so long as, consciously or unconsciously, they have negotiated a degree of consensus on the rate of exchange… the friendship still can develop and stabilize so long as the exchanges have the potential for returning to a balanced state” p 274 “No member is overly dependent upon any other. The members can disagree with one another openly, even insult one another with humor, as friends can, without fear of retaliation.”
    4. **Initial discussions will be in non-threatening, peripheral areas, before becoming more open and wide-ranging: ** "In circles that become successful, early in the relationship the members evolve norms that encourage open communication and wide-ranging exchanges. However, in the formation stage, rather than focusing on their current work, the conversations usually center around more peripheral, less threatening, concerns. If they exchange work, they are likely to exchange finished products rather than works in progress. “
    5. Roles:
      1. The gatekeeper — filters and incubates the group. Initially, the group is a radial network of people that the gate keeper knows and values individually. Often a group forms when a gatekeeper or a matchmaker who knows each member individually introduces them to one another. In other words, circles often begin as radial networks centered on a single person. The personality and values of the gatekeeper act as filters in the formation of a circle.
      2. The novice members — a courtship role: “they size one another up, discover areas of commonality, and engage in activities that require little commitment.”
      3. The charismatic leader — “a narcissistic member, idealized by the other members, whose energy and vision sweep them into exploratory activities. The leader and the new members have reciprocal impact on one another: the charismatic leader sparks involvement of the novices, and the dynamics of the group draw out the energy and vision of the charismatic leader.”
  2. Rebellion against Authority:
    1. Establish and emphasize the “out group”: “Early in the relationship, before members develop the trust to explore their deepest interests and before they sharpen the boundaries between themselves and nonmembers, they often discover a common antipathy toward authorities in their field. In this stage, they find it easier to talk about what they dislike rather than what they like. They may be vague about the kind of work they value, but they are very clear about the kind of work they reject. Indeed, there may be a “slash and burn” quality to their interactions as they attack with relish the conventional work in their field... One of the most common group activities in the rebellion stage is the ritual of sharing anecdotes about the “outrageous” work of those in positions of authority. When they are apart, members gather gossip about these authorities, then, when they come together, they share their stories. The stories serve as legends in the group: by repeating the themes in the stories the members come to understand more clearly who they are and what they reject in their field.”
    2. Roles:
      1. The scape goat: “At times the shared antipathy may be focused on a peer who serves as a scapegoat—someone who is seen as currying the favor of the authorities, or who embodies the conservative values that members are attempting to distance themselves from. When a scapegoat is present at a meeting, the group’s ritualistic activity may involve baiting him or her into an argument; and when the scapegoat is absent, they may ritualize storytelling about his or her faults.”
      2. The tyrant: “In addition to the scapegoat, the role constellation during the rebellion stage includes an authority figure who is seen as a ‘tyrant.’ The tyrant, a person outside the group, is a constraining or threatening authority who has some power over the members.”
      3. The lightning rod: “A third role is the lighting rod, a member who is most articulate in expressing the group’s shared hostility toward authority figures and scapegoats.”
      4. The conflicted: “Finally, the constellation includes conflicted members who are ambivalent about rebelling. Caught in the middle, they share some of the values of the rejected authorities, but they also enjoy the flamboyant expression of contempt by the less conflicted, charismatic leader. For them, the group interaction serves as a stage on which their internal conflicts are externalized & dramatized.
  3. The Quest Stage: Negotiating a New Vision
    1. Discussions within the circle begin to establish a shared vision: “…Members begin the process of constructing their own vision. By vision I mean a socially constructed set of beliefs about the basic “facts” that should be taken into account in a field, the most important problems to work on, and the best ways to work on them. For artists, it is a shared style—an approach to painting, including a set of beliefs about what to paint and how to paint it. For scientists, it is a shared theory and method of doing research. For social reformers, it is a shared set of beliefs about what is wrong with the world and how to go about changing it. In brief, a vision is a theory and a method for doing work in a field. A circle arrives at a vision through trial and error, argument, and eventual consensus… Members of circles often talk to one another as if they are on a journey in a cultural space… By arguing about and clarifying what they reject in the work of [others who are more radical or conservative], the members begin to build consensus about what kind of work they value.”
    2. **Collaborators will pair off in 2’s to do their best work: “**Collaborative circles usually consist of three to five members, only rarely do they consist of more than seven or eight. Regardless of group size, as knowledge of one another’s values, abilities, and personalities deepens, each member is likely to pair off and work more closely with one other person. During the quest stage, these pairs become more established as coalitions within the circle. Most episodes of creative work occur within these pairs.”
    3. 1:1 partnerships build up to high trust relationships, and only then is it comfortable to share their biggest ideas: “When they open up and exchange wild ideas that go far beyond accepted approaches in their field, they not only risk appearing sloppy, foolish, or even mad; they risk having someone steal their most original ideas. Before two members are able to establish this kind of exchange, they usually must test one another’s responses in less intimate exchanges and negotiate a high degree of trust… the norms can be explicit or implicit. They include rules about a time and place to meet, a pace for producing and exchanging work, and a constructive style of critical response. The rules may also include expectations about confidentiality and ownership of ideas.”
    4. Alternate between meeting in pairs and the whole group to refine.. “The quest stage tapers to an end when the collaborating pairs refine their new vision in discussions with the whole group. While individual pairs may be supportive and nurturing, the larger group may be skeptical and critical. In these whole group meetings, a member who takes the role of devil’s advocate plays an important part in challenging the pairs to refine their thinking.”
    5. Potential for implosion: “Within the pairs, they open their private thoughts to one another, rely on one another as sympathetic critics, and expose to one another their most outrageous ideas. When they are engaged in this kind of dialogue, they are most vulnerable to one another. Without the commonalities of background, values, and styles of discourse, they may react to one another in destructive ways. The disastrous disintegration of the relationship between Henry James and H.G. Wells is an example of a destructive outcome. Their wide differences in age, cultural background, and stages of career contributed to suppressed disagreements and misunderstandings that culminated in public attacks on one another’s work. Their intimacy during the periods of collaborative pairing made them all the more vulnerable to one another.
    6. Equity in distribution of rewards: “the sense of equity in the distribution of rewards contributes to the trust and intimacy necessary for instrumental intimacy and creative work in pairs.” p 275
    7. Roles:
      1. The radicals: “have ‘gone too far’ in rebelling and embracing new ideas and techniques …Those out too far in front.”
      2. The conservatives: “too slow to abandon conventional or outdated approaches to the discipline…those lagging behind.”
      3. Devil’s advocate: “In these whole group meetings, a member who takes the role of devil’s advocate plays an important part in challenging the pairs to refine their thinking.”
      4. Central coalition: “the central coalition comprises members who have won respect through their contributions to the work of the group, and who use their emergent authority to socialize marginal members into the emerging group culture.”
  4. The Creative Work Stage
    1. A more self-conscious group identity. “the group members alternate between times when they work alone or in pairs and times when they meet as a group…if they haven’t already chosen a name for the group, they are likely to do so at this point.”
    2. The physical setting of the meeting may become an important part of the group’s identity: “public meeting places of circles often have the qualities that Oldenburg (1999) attribues to ‘third places,’ unpretentious settings away from both work and family life, like the English pub or the French cafe, where a set of regulars feel welcomed and participate in an ongoing conversation.”
    3. The establishment of interaction rituals.
    4. The members follow through on the implications of their vision, using meetings with each other to replenish self-esteem, sharpen their understanding, and share solutions.
  5. The Collective Action Stage
    1. Members decide to carry out a large project together, which introduces new strains:“New roles emerge as members divide up the labor of the project, make decisions, and become interdependent over a long period of time.” “The demands of the executive leader for decision making, increased commitment, equity in workloads, and coordination of efforts may generate tension and conflict in the circle”.
    2. Increased interaction with outside world also introduces new strains: “The public’s reactions to the circle can have significant consequences for the group. Labels and criticism addressed at the group as a whole may affect the group identity as well as the individual self-concepts of the members. Reactions to an individual’s work may alter the internal status structure of the circle.”
    3. Roles:
      1. the executive (Mills 1984) or wheeler dealer (dunphey 1972) “obtains resources outside the group, organizes the group, and negotiates with outsiders for space, equipment, and money.”
      2. the lightning rod: “the member who had been most vocal in attacking authorities outside the group may now be called to act as an agent of control inside the group, saying what needs to be said to the members who are not contributing to the group project.
      3. Peacemaker: “spends time clarifying miscommunications, soothing hurt feelings, and negotiating compromises to conflicting demands from members.”
  6. The Separation Stage
    1. Due to these strains, the group begins to disintegrate. “Conflicts may accumulate and go unresolved. The conflicts may polarize the group, so that the same subgroups confront each other over and over again. Difficulties in decision making may lead some members to act without group support. Chronic conflicts may eventually swamp the member who plays the role of peacemaker. Eventually, some members may conclude that the costs of working together outweigh the gains. To others, those who leave may be seen as disloyal to the group.”
    2. Members will benefit less from the circle, even as the costs of involvement grow, and some choose to leave. “The increased emotional independence, along with the increased skill and intellectual maturity, lead some members to pursue separate projects. Earlier the members may have experienced the group as an aid in nurturing individuation from authorities. Tyrants outside the circle were seen as the constraining forces to be overcome. But in the separation stage, the culture of the circle and the pressures within the group may be experienced as constraining. Some members may be obsessed with breaking out of the circle and gaining recognition on their own.”
    3. Public recognition and credit is applied unevenly and divides the group further. “As the interaction with the public increases, some members may receive more recognition than others. The question of who deserves credit for what idea may lead to divisions and antagonism.”
  7. The Nostalgic Reunion Stage
    1. **A potential underwhelming reunion: “**Although some reunions may occur, reunited circles rarely achieve the synergy they had in earlier stages of their development.”
    2. Establishment of a final vision and official history, and potential conflict over that re-writing: “The attempts to construct a final vision and an official history of the group may divide the group even more, as some members’ roles are seen as more important than others. But often the bonds of affection transcend the divisions over history, intellectual property, and differential success, and the members support one another during the personal crises of later life.”
    3. Roles:
      1. The alumni representative: “This member gathers information about the whereabouts of the others, and may attempt to bring them back together.”
      2. proteges: “attempt to codify the group’s vision or construct a narrative account of the group’s history.”

Loose Quotes

“As Chubin (1976) found in his study of innovations in science, people in marginal positions in a discipline are more likely to be a source of new ideas than are people at the center” p 268

“Ambition, coupled with their marginalization, may be what fuels the resentment and rebellious tone characteristic of their early interaction with their peers. As they interact, if they discover that the members of their circle share their feelings, their irreverent attitudes toward authority are reinforced.” p 268

**mentor-protege relationships are imbalanced, and not conducive to collaborative circles — _“**the mentor often resists movement towards equality, and the protege comes to resent the requirements of deference and dependency.” p274_

Collaborative circles often come out of turbulent environments, when different ideas are vying for success. “Collaborative circles that develop innovative visions flourish in turbulent cultural environments, where two or more visions of a discipline, like high and low pressure fronts on a weather map, vie for centrality in a single place… For those already committed to one or the other vision, the confrontation has the effect of polarizing them even further. Particularly among those at the center of the network — the masters and their proteges — the conflict leads to increased commitment to the established visions. When under attack, prestigious mentors usually expect loyalty from their disciples, and categorize others as either for or against them. But on the periphery of the network, the conflicts at the center encourage the spectators to weigh one vision against the other and to reconsider basic assumptions...at times, the turbulence occurs because of rapid change in a society.”

Mentors can keep ideas limited to an existing particular vision of a field.“…if the members are not dominated by a defensive mentor anxious to preserve a particular vision of the field, the interaction in the group may start percolating toward a new vision.”

Circles as buffers against pressures to conform — p 270 “Once formed, a circle constructs it’s own subculture… Not surprisingly, those who advocate the new vision are often viewed as threats by the established authorities at the center of a discipline network. These deviant innovators often become targets of formal and informal sanctions.”“The dynamics of the circle thus not only buffer the pressures to conform, but encourage experimentation. The charismatic leader’s sense of mission, self-confidence, and daring are contagious.”

Circles resemble youth gangs?