ARCHIVE - Comment on group work

Several project groups are having some difficulty coordinating the individual contributions. That there are strong feelings on a project suggests that you all care a lot about the work, the quality of the paper, and your individual contributions to it. That's a good thing. So how about a liberal dose of benefit-of-the-doubt — can you proceed from the assumption that all of you are conscientious, serious people who have the good of the project at heart?

People differ in their communication styles. Personally, I come from an environment where people are quite blunt about things, and I’m still in the process of learning when more nuanced and diplomatic speech is called for. Please try to take such stylistic differences into account, both when speaking and when listening.

Please try to take a deep breath, and relax and let go of the personality issues. The point of the work is the project itself, so please try to keep the focus there. Here are some suggestions on how to coordinate the individual efforts to create a cohesive and focused whole:

The most important point is this: what is the paper about? Here I do not mean a general topic area, rather, I mean specifically what is it that you are trying to say, i.e. a statement, not a question. For example, your statement/hypothesis/thesis might be “the concept of a male deity arises from the patriarchal culture(s) in which the religions in question exist.” Or perhaps “the concept of a male deity arises from fundamental theological precepts of the religions in question.” Or, “the concept of a male deity has distinct origins in different religious/cultural traditions.” (I chose this example simply as an illustration, not to single out any project group.)

Your paper will provide a critical analysis and evaluation of your thesis and relevant facts and theories. Thus even if you individually disagree with the thesis statement, or with other members of your group, you should all recognize that these dissenting opinions represent an essential and vital part of the project — they add to the value of the work, they don’t negate or distract from it. Lori and I have tried to model this dialectical approach in class, with our “yes, but...” conversations: i.e. “yes, you raise a valid point, but then how do you explain the observation that....?” It might seem superficially confrontational, but the point is to develop a better understanding, not to be right. It isn’t an argument, and nobody loses.

In organizing the paper, first provide a brief discussion of the relevant background on why the topic is significant, and what observations and reasoning lead you to your thesis statement. Then decide on a workable order in which to present the the facts, theories, and logic that support and refute the various and contrasting perspectives on your thesis. You should finish with as close to a consensus conclusion, but that may be an agreement to disagree, i.e. you might conclude that it’s not possible to arrive at a single, simple conclusion.

Remember that there is no one right way to do your paper, and your paper will not be perfect. Each of you should feel that you have made a significant contribution to the paper. Likewise, each of you will probably feel that there are some things in the paper that you would not have said if you had total control, and that there are some things lacking that you would have said.

Don't forget that you need to address your topic from both sociological and evolutionary perspectives. An evolutionary argument will discuss how a particular behavior or social interaction affects the fitness of the individuals involved. Go beyond a simplistic "they behave this way because it enhances their fitness (=increases their reproductive success). " Try to develop an analysis as to why the people in question use that particular behavior, rather than some other. You can be creative and even speculative here; try to provide relevant background to show why your speculations are reasonable. And remember that it is possible that some behavior, interaction, or structure is not consistent with enhancing one's evolutionary fitness. If this is the case, try to back up your statement as well as you can.

In my experience, sometimes the writing can take on something of a life of its own: you’re discussing a very complex set of relationships and processes, and the nature of language compels you to reduce it to a linear format. Sometimes I have felt that the writing has gone off in a direction from which it was difficult if not impossible to say all the things I was thinking and would have liked to say. This is just something we have to live with as part of writing.

This might sound absurd if there is a lot of interpersonal friction in your group, but I’ll say it anyway: try to have fun. You’re engaged in a challenging creative process. You’re trying to blow away some of the fog that obscures understanding, and synthesize disparate pieces into a structure that can stand on its own. It’s a stressful process, for sure, and it’s also the really cool part of academics — this is the real thrill, yes, thrill, of research. It’s difficult to pull it off, and it’s exhilarating when you do, even when you realize that your product is incomplete, leaves much unanswered, and has a good deal of room for improvement. The lower rungs of a ladder are not less important than the upper ones.