<html>
<font size=3>What is CPSI? I've never heard of it.<br>
<br>
Esther<br>
<br>
<br>
At 10:56 PM 6/27/99 -0600, you wrote:<br>
>At 11:32 PM 6/26/99 +0200, you wrote:<br>
>>At 00:43 26-06-1999 -0600, you wrote:<br>
>>>Koos's observations are excellent,<br>
>>>and I agree with him almost entirely.<br>
>>almost?? ;-)<br>
><br>
>I thought I'd leave an escape hatch open, just in case! ;-)<br>
><br>
>>>Three very critical factors, in<br>
>>>my experience, have been: whether or not the group has a
history, whether<br>
>>>group members belong to one organization or are members of a
relatively<br>
>>>open-boundaried community, and the task undertaken by the
group.<br>
>><br>
>>Yes, I can see that. Could you say some more about<br>
>>what kind of tasks in your experience are OK for<br>
>>electronic contact and what tasks aren't?<br>
><br>
>Shoot, there is a price to be paid for breaking one's silence;
one<br>
>actually needs to communicate clearly!! ;-)<br>
><br>
>Full disclosure; YMMV; void where prohibited; S&H extra; for
entertainment<br>
>purposes only; etc. Now ... (I'm trying to do this while my
5-year old son<br>
>competes for my attention)<br>
><br>
>Tasks with relatively high informative content vs.
affective/emotive<br>
>content are the best, esp. for zero history groups, or groups that
have had<br>
>no face-to-face (f2f) contact, and most esp. when both these
conditions<br>
>hold. Where the groups have had prior history, and esp. f2f
contact, one<br>
>can drift into the emotive zone. Personally, being a
touchy-feely kind of<br>
>guy, that's when I drop the technology entirely and go off with group
into<br>
>the woods, so to speak.<br>
><br>
>F2f interaction has an inherent structurational advantage:
Group and<br>
>process structuring can emerge very rapidly from the Group Plasma
(for want<br>
>of a better term) -- the dynamic Hot Zone consisting of people,
issues,<br>
>interactions, decisions, emotions, etc. generated during an f2f
group<br>
>process. There is no worthy equivalent in the electronic
context (so far).<br>
> The effort involved in creating and directing structure in the
electronic<br>
>context is (relatively) enormous, and cannot happen without a lot
of<br>
>cooperation from the participants. And generating cooperation
from a<br>
>"non-captive" group is challenging. Consequently, a
lot of the structure<br>
>has to be provided up front, and participants generally need to
"sign-on"<br>
>to the structure, or stay out. This may sound no different from
OS and<br>
>other f2f processes, but there is a lot more faith that is demanded
in the<br>
>electronic context (which may need to be substituted with information
where<br>
>such faith is not forthcoming), than in f2f.<br>
><br>
>This list (OSLIST), has been in action for how long? 20
months? We have<br>
>been having a lot of free-ranging discussion. Bear in mind
that<br>
>practically everyone on this list shared an interest in OS at the
time of<br>
>joining, and many already knew each other in realspace. Imagine
trying to<br>
>organize an OS right off the bat, electronically. Not
impossible, I<br>
>concede, but challenging.<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>>>In<br>
>>>particular, there is a huge difference between an open
community, which is<br>
>>>what OSLIST is, and members of an organization with multiple,
ongoing<br>
>>>relationships. The dynamics are very different.<br>
>><br>
>>Sounds by all means reasonable. Nevertheless, if you have<br>
>>specific examples, it would help to grasp the idea.<br>
>>Thanks,<br>
>>Koos<br>
><br>
>Over the years of facilitating face-to-face (f2f) electronically
mediated<br>
>groups (and from being part of such an organization) I have found
that a<br>
>prior history of f2f interaction can both help and hinder
computer<br>
>mediation. The help part includes: being able to
interpret words as they<br>
>were "actually meant", and the dynamic, near instant
co-accomodation (much<br>
>like a dance) that happens among participants. The hinder part
includes:<br>
>a potential loss of candor caused by the fact people almost always
can<br>
>guess at who is saying what (one stated "benefit" of
electronic mediation<br>
>is the ability to post items anonymously, if such is
necessary). Even when<br>
>anonymity is not an issue, members of groups with a history tend to
fall<br>
>into overlearned interactional patterns which may be detrimental to
making<br>
>a breakthrough.<br>
><br>
>---------<br>
><br>
>As an aside, anybody on this list been to CPSI Buffalo? I'm a
CPSI addict<br>
><best drug for me, bar none>, and just returned from
there. Would love to<br>
>hear from you, and whether you see any possible linkages between
there and<br>
>this forum (please communicate with me directly, to conserve list
bandwidth).<br>
><br>
>Murli<br>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>Murli Nagasundaram, Ph.D.<br>
>3356 N. Lakeharbor Ln. #107<br>
>Boise, ID 83703<br>
>208-853-3987<br>
>email: rismurli@cobfac.boisestate.edu<br>
>home page:
<a href="http://cispom.boisestate.edu/murli" eudora="autourl">http://cispom.boisestate.edu/murli</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</font></html>