In what ways did the study group function as a community of practice rather than simply a study aid?
So just to double check I looked up the definition of Community of Practice, and what I found was that a "Community of Practice (CoP) is a group of people who share a passion or concern for something they do, interacting regularly to learn and improve their skills, share best practices, and build a collective repertoire of experiences, tools, and solutions to become better practitioners in that domain (Communities of Practice, 2020)" . . . and. . . . "Communities of practice are formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor: a tribe learning to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of expression, a group of engineers working on similar problems, a clique of pupils defining their identity in the school, a network of surgeons exploring novel techniques, a gathering of first-time managers helping each other cope" (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner; 2015).
Describe how you initially joined the doctoral support group, what motivated you to join, and why you stayed involved.
I was not necessarily "motivated" to join the group. I think I went into it grudgingly. I am not a "group" person. Never have been. In general, if there is a team sport or a solo sport, I'll pick the solo every time. So, really, it's a surprise that I joined the group and stayed with it.
I don't know why it irks me so much, but I hate it when people refuse to make a decision. Here's what's brought this to mind this time.
We have a report that I want to finish up. I had intended to release this report in July or August, but it has taken my boss quite a while to provide her edits. It took, in fact, several months for her to get those edits to me. They were fairly extensive too, so it took me a bit to integrate them all.
Again, I'm taking part in an autoethnography , so I'm answering questions about our study group. Here is the next question:
How would you describe your level of participation over time? (e.g., occasional, regular, core member, shifted over time)
I think we met quite regularly at the beginning of our coursework. But then these meetings were very mission-driven, almost tactical. I remember we discussed specific homework assignments. We discussed upcoming classes and the progression of the classes. We would discuss the challenging aspects of the homework and even those related to APA. I had very little integration with APA, so it was great to have an academic professional in the group whom we could turn to for APA guidance.
I like to do things myself. Ask anyone who has gone camping with me. My wife loves talking about how I'll ask her to do something, and in just seconds, I will take over for whoever I've asked to do it, and do it myself. "Honey, will you go make a fire?" . . . "Never mind, I'll do it." or "Sweety, will you get the campstove out of the car?" just seconds later, "I've got it."
Today, for some reason, I was reminded of a project at my old organization. That organization specializes in developing and delivering training courses, especially onboarding courses for other companies. We noticed at some point that although we provided that for others, we had never provided one for our own workers. Or if we had, and some departments had, it was ad hoc.
Here were the capabilities and expectations I had.
I'm reading a book about D-Day by Stephen Ambrose. I've read a lot of books by Ambrose over the years. I gave up on him due to the "plagiarism" scandal at the end of his life. I wasn't a fan of that. And I'm still not. BUT, I've been stunned (as my readers well know) by the magnitude of plagiarism taking hold in academic circles, see for instance Harvard's president, et al. I wonder if there is a study there somewhere. Regardless, Ambrose is a greater writer. More on that later.
What I find interesting is his description of the landing at Omaha Beach. The first invasion he discusses is Utah, and for the most part that sounds rather staid. But boy, Omaha was a goat fuck.
As I said, Andrew has a land acknowledgment in his syllabus. Specifically, it says: Land Acknowledgement: As the first land-grant institution established under the 1862 Morrill Act, we acknowledge that the state of Kansas is historically home to many Native nations, including Kaw, Osage, and Pawnee, among others. Furthermore, Kansas is the current home to four federally recognized Native nations: The Prairie Band Potawatomi, the Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas, the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, and Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska. Many Native nations utilized the western plains of Kansas as their hunting grounds, and others—such as the Delaware—were moved through this region during Indian removal efforts to make way for White settlers. It’s important to acknowledge this, since the land that serves as the foundation for this institution was, and still is, stolen land. We remember these truths because K-State’s status as a land-grant institution is a story that exists within ongoing settler-colonialism and rests on the dispossession of Indigenous people and nations from their lands. These truths are often invisible to many. The recognition that K-State’s history begins and continues through Indigenous contexts is essential.
