T pi he workshop 4

Editor's Notes

• #26: http://benschmidt.org/profGender/#%7B%22database%22%3A%22RMP%22%2C%22plotType%22%3A%22pointchart%22%2C%22method%22%3A%22return_json%22%2C%22search_limits%22%3A%7B%22word%22%3A%5B%22excellent%22%5D%2C%22department__id%22%3A%7B%22%24lte%22%3A25%7D%7D%2C%22aesthetic%22%3A%7B%22x%22%3A%22WordsPerMillion%22%2C%22y%22%3A%22department%22%2C%22color%22%3A%22gender%22%7D%2C%22counttype%22%3A%5B%22WordsPerMillion%22%5D%2C%22groups%22%3A%5B%22department%22%2C%22gender%22%5D%2C%22testGroup%22%3A%22C%22%7D
• #27: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2014-09886-001 With Malice Toward None and Charity for Some: Ingroup Favoritism Enables Discrimination. By Greenwald, Anthony G.; Pettigrew, Thomas F. American Psychologist, Mar 24 , 2014, No Pagination Specified. Greenwald et al (2014) conclude that in-group favouritism is plausibly more significant as a basis for discrimination in contemporary American society than is outgroup-directed hostility. Corinne A. Moss-Racusina,b, John F. Dovidiob, Victoria L. Brescollc, Mark J. Grahama,d, and Jo Handelsman. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Accedmy of the Sciences (PNAS). October 9, 2012 vol. 109 no. 41 
• #28: Studies indicate that people’s behaviour is shaped by implicit or unintended biases, stemming from repeated exposure to pervasive cultural stereotypes that portray women as less competent but simultaneously emphasize their warmth and likeability compared with men.” Moss-Racusin et al (2009). |Judith Butler: American Philosopher: In her best-known work, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990), and its sequel, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ (1993), Butler built upon the familiar cultural-theoretic assumption that gender is socially constructed (the result of socialization, broadly conceived) rather than innate and that conventional notions of gender and sexuality serve to perpetuate the traditional domination of women by men and to justify the oppression of homosexuals and transgender persons. One of her innovations was to suggest that gender is constituted by action and speech—by behaviour in which gendered traits and dispositions are exhibited or acted out. In particular, gender is not an underlying essence or nature of which gendered behaviour is the product; it is a series of acts whose constant repetition creates the illusion that an underlying nature exists. Gender, according to Butler, “is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results.” She stressed, however, that individuals do not exist prior to or independently of the genders they “perform”: “gender is always a doing, though not a doing by a subject who might be said to preexist the deed.” Indeed, “the ‘doer’ is variably constructed in and through the deed.” Individual identity (the subject) is itself performatively constituted. It follows that individuals do not “choose” their genders and cannot assume or discard or radically alter them at will simply by behaving (or not behaving) in certain ways. At the same time, small deviations from established patterns of gendered behaviour are possible and indeed inevitable, and it is through such occasional variations that the socially constructed character of gender is revealed.
• #29: Each student may have a different view on what a valuable/poor contribution is. Focussing on specific behaviours reduces this subjectivity. Assessing each other’s team-working behaviours, rather than the quality of their work (often called peer review). This initiative is driven by student requests Will discourage free riding? What about self mark inflation? Evidence that students are poor or weak judges of own quality of work Evidence that physical appearance influences judgement Bias based on assumptions about valuable character traits? Cultural misunderstandings? Friendship groups or the opposite? Negative impact on those with low self esteem / low self efficacy / vulnerable students Invites cooperation or competition (who will be the ‘best’ team member) Invites blame game / judgemental vs. judgement
• #36: an organization's control system evolved in response to a managerial change from hierarchical, bureaucratic control to concertive control in the form of self-managing teams. The study investigates how the organization's members developed a system of value-based normative rules that controlled their actions more powerfully and completely than the former system. I describe the organization and its members and provide a detailed account of the dynamics that emerged as concertive control became manifest through the members' interactions. This account depicts how concertive control evolved from the value consensus of the company's team workers to a system of normative rules that became increasingly rationalized. Contrary to some proponents of such systems, concertive control did not free these workers from Weber's iron cage of rational control. Instead, the concertive system, as it became manifest in this case, appeared to draw the iron cage tighter and to constrain the organization's members more powerfully.