Yesterdays tutorial involved work on an annotated bibliography, as well as the writing up of the collaborative contract between our group.

Firstly, it was my job to organise the dispute resolution procedures for my group should a conflict arise. They were as follows:

Dispute Resolution Procedures

 

(in relation to creative differences)

• All members of the group should be given equal opportunity to speak
• Should the dispute be over conflicting ideas: A deliberation on the ideas listing the pros and cons of each should be discussed. With this, we can then attempt to find an idea that incorporates the pros of each conflicting idea.
• Should the dispute by over conflicting ideas between only two group members, the third group member shall deliberate on the final idea that shall be pursued.
• freely about their opinions and personal evaluation of each idea.
• The practicality of each idea should be taken into account over creative interest disputes
• The right is reserved to renegotiate the resolution procedures at any point throughout the project, should it be agreed upon by all members.

 (in relation to personal conflict)

• All members of the group should be given equal opportunity to speak
• Personal issues should be acknowledged as an excuse for something such as a lack of work but must be accepted by all members of the group
• An argument should remain in relation to a task and refrain from being related to personal matters (re. attacking someone personally as opposed to professionally)
• The conflict should end with each member feeling as though they’ve been given equal option to speak and deliberate on an outcome
• Strategies for moving forward should be discussed in relation to the conflict
• The right is reserved to renegotiate the resolution procedures at any point throughout the project, should it be agreed upon by all members.

My problem with these procedures I’ve created is that they sound overtly formal, and suggest a lack of connection between the group. I struggled to find effective strategies that were able to be “enforced”, as the idea of a strategy having to be “enforced” to solve a conflict would essentially mean that the conflict is not solvable at all. However, these are what I believe the best resolution procedures are, and I can only hope that no such conflict arises to require this. So far our group appears to be collaborating well, and we share the same like-mindedness of ideas.

Annotated Bibliography

The annotated bibliography exercise is essentially designed to be a “literature review” of an academic text, in this case, texts related to our groups theme for our Project Brief 4: “Technology”. My favourite text that I’ve read through so far is without a doubt ‘Tweets & the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism’ by Paolo Gerbaudo (2012).

Despite being quite an academic text, it has really interesting questions about whether social media has allowed activism to become less or more successful. Not only is it extremely interesting, it is also relevant to our current project. We are considering focussing our project on social media, and particularly the question of whether social media is effective as a form of moral activism when the anonymity of a keyboard is the only thing that allows a person to speak their mind. We are asking; Would the person who tells someone off for sexist comments online do the same thing on real life? And if they wouldn’t? Then should social media really be considered successful as a form of activism at all?