FASS3999: Critical Reflection
FASS3999: Critical Reflection
Introduction:
This critical reflection mediates on the theme of collaboration and team dynamics1 by focusing
explicitly on the role of conflict, compromise and norm adaptation. In doing so, it explores two
key moments of tension, one within group formation and another within the performance of the
group’s function. Fundamentally, these experiences provide reasons for us to consider not only
that disagreement is intrinsic to the development of interdisciplinary perspectives, but that such
disagreements reflect the contingency, informality and temporality of the interdisciplinary
project in a significant manner.
1. Forming, Storming and Norming (but not necessarily in that order)
An operative assumption embedded within the ‘forming, storming and norming’ model of initial
group development is that group dynamics proceed in a linear fashion through these stages, with
the achievement of each stage the only precursor to progression to the next.2 However, in my
experience of group formation, an overzealous attempt at embedding norms, before dealing with
the personal and power dynamics intrinsic to the individuated ‘storming’3 stage led us to initially
develop only a superficial group identity.
Our group’s desire for established norms came from a positive place. Despite having only offered
cursory introductions that retained a paradigmatically reserved, formal character,4 our feeling
4 Dixon, Lecture, p.9.
3 Dixon, Lecture, p.10.
2 Dixon, Lecture, p.8, 14.
1 Robin Dixon, Week 4 Lecture, FASS3999, 2022, p.1.
1
FASS3999: Critical Reflection
was that by moving directly to detailing group norms, we would all be ‘on the same page’,
reflecting an eagerness to get straight to the point and make certain the ambiguous contingencies
of our task. Thus, we initiated a democratic mechanism for decision making and assigned certain
roles within the group project based only on individual’s own representations of their skills and
interests. The result, looking back, seems inevitable. Those more disposed to confidently
represent the character of their contributions monopolized roles within the group that entail
positions of leadership, like ‘facilitator' and, for me, ‘editor.’ Immediately, we felt that our
approach was justified for its efficient result. When looking around at other groups in the
classroom, still engaged in tentative initial negotiations, our faith in our approach was bolstered.
On paper, at least, in the form of our group contract, we found a cohesive (if informal or vague)
statement of group identity affirmed by the signatures of all members.
However, realizations as to each group member’s actual interest and capacity in performing their
role undermined our illusory cohesion. Especially pertinent were the repeated absences of our
initial group facilitator, whose time in the role often led to circularity in discussion and
inefficient allocation of time on minor points best left to individual discretion. When these
concerns were flagged with this group member, their response was to hear out the criticism,
before articulating that we had all agreed to their position. Whilst true, the feeling of the other
members of the group, myself included, was that, in the absence of a true ‘storming’ stage of
group formation, we chose without knowing any better.
But, what does this tell us about the manner in which the ‘forming, storming and norming’ model
might be diverted from, and what consequences such diversion entails? Essentially, it was
2
FASS3999: Critical Reflection
revealed that because there was no process of conflict, dissent and compromise in the formation
of our group norms, our capacity to ‘size one another up’ was substantially impaired.5 Instead,
we had reflexively and jointly adopted a conflict averse style, rushing to agree with other’s
proposals, or internally censoring contributions that may have met with resistance,6 failing to
allow conflicts to bloom into opportunities for development.7 Our reasons for doing so are likely
distinct, but, as a consequence of the multiple ethnic, sexual and gendered identities present in
our group, as well as the intimate nature of our case study topic ‘the couple as a social good’,
some recognition should be offered to what Bell Hooks describes as a ‘puzzling fear.’ This fear is
one that modern individuals possess, of ‘bonding across boundaries.’8 Hooks believes that this
fear exists even where little to no risk of repression or ex-communication exists.9 However, in the
context of the formative stages of our interdisciplinary collaboration, such a fear strikes me as
decidedly less puzzling than Hooks thinks it to be. In her own view, the ability of the participants
in a relationship to overcome conflict depends upon the meaningfulness of the bond already
developed between the concerned parties.10 In a situation where such bonds had not developed
beyond the superficial, it seems natural to avoid unnecessary conflicts, especially where
repairing them often requires a compassion or care that may not be naturally felt for relative
strangers.11 Thus, one issue in our stunted normative development may well have been a
well-placed but overextended fear of harming the group dynamics through initiating conflict or
causing offense.
11 hooks, Writing Beyond Race, p.146,149.
10 hooks, Writing Beyond Race, p.146.
9 hooks, Writing Beyond Race, p.144.
8 bell hooks, Writing Beyond Race : Living Theory and Practice, (London: Taylor & Francis
Group, 2012), p. 144.
7 Manuel Tironi, “Dissenting”, in Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods, ed. Lury, C et al,
(Routledge, 1st ed, 2018), p. 295.
6 Dixon, Lecture, p.14.
5 Dixon, Lecture, p.10.
3
FASS3999: Critical Reflection
Whilst our reasons for self-censored agreement are complex, the result was certain. The result
was that our norms, though unequivocally endorsed, failed to actually crystalize any emergent
practice or power dynamic within the group. One may put the situation alternatively as follows;
instead of asking ‘what practices and roles should the group adopt based upon our actual
dynamics, recognised skills and personalities’, we in effect asked ‘what practices and roles do
groups often adopt in a successful manner’ and merely applied these norms to our situation
uncritically.12 Fundamentally, this is to say that whilst the ‘forming, storming and norming’
model might supply both a descriptive and normative standard in group formation; actual
approaches to group formation often unfold in multivariate forms, reflecting the contingent and
informal negotiations that are central to team dynamics, to better or worse effect.
2. Temporality, Dissent and Compromise
Furthermore, this group dynamic, by virtue of the constraints of the interdisciplinary project, is
defined by a certain temporality. Time within the group is directed towards a final date and
segmented into planning sessions, progress meetings and classes. In my experience, it was only
upon the disruption of this ordinary temporal scheme that we found ways to meaningfully
compromise and defuse conflict by ‘putting forward together.’13 In a late evening meeting
preparing to deliver our work in progress presentation, our group discussions were marred by
conflict, especially on issues of methodology. Our research led to conflicting accounts of why
young people use social media to engage with the form of the couple. In my view, this qualitative
conflict necessitated further research, possibly in the form of interviews, to better identify
13 Mike Michael, “Compromising” in Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods, ed. Lury, C et al,
(Routledge, 1st ed, 2018), p. 281.
12 Robin Dixon, Week 4 Lecture, FASS3999, 2022, p.13-14.
4
FASS3999: Critical Reflection
dominant trends. In the view of some others, this conflict itself was the dominant trend that we
ought to analyze. Whilst ordinarily, these issues might be dealt with by virtue of calm,
deliberative discussion, within the relevant time-crunch, cooler heads were struggling to prevail.
Deference to the established democratic norms of the group, where a simple majority was
sufficient to decide an issue had failed, drawing a two-all tie on whether to proceed in further
primary research. In hindsight, the phenomena we were experiencing was one of constraint,
where we had immediately attempted to assimilate and neutralize dissent by reference to existing
structures of the group.14 In doing so, as Ranciere notes, we had stymied the liberatory potential
of that dissent and failed to see that debate, in order to ‘liberate’ must take the procedures and
knowledges that count as legitimate within the group as up for debate as well, enabling us to
rethink our uncritically adopted group norms.15
This was the point we had reached, when suddenly, the lights in our library room went out and
the single zoom participant in our meeting froze mid-sentence. As the other students in the
library gasped and giggled, we looked at one another with wry, slightly irritated smiles. ‘Of
course’, we thought, ‘this has to happen to us.’ Soon after, once the security guard had been
around to advise us that everything was alright and we would soon be back to working with the
lights on, we began to laugh at the frustrating absurdity of our situation. In doing so, we found a
way to unsettle the tension of our disagreement akin to changing the ‘staging’ of our meeting.16
Almost instantaneously, each of us was placed in a position of equality,17 at the mercy of a dead
wifi signal and an absence of light, where the over-serious nature of our debate was diminished
17 Michael, “Compromising”p. 281-282.
16 Mike Michael, “Compromising” in Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods, ed. Lury, C et al,
(Routledge, 1st ed, 2018), p. 282.
15 Tironi, “Dissenting”, p. 294.
14Manuel Tironi, “Dissenting”, in Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods, ed. Lury, C et al,
(Routledge, 1st ed, 2018), p. 293-294..
5
FASS3999: Critical Reflection
as we momentarily forgot about the impending deadline we faced. This staging, which recalls the
jovial and temporally distinct atmosphere fostered by Michael’s and his fellow researchers going
to the pub together,18 places one in a position of reflexive openness19 removing the
methodological tunnel vision that I was experiencing, likely tied to the centrality of clear
analytical terms in my discipline; philosophy. Thus, when the meeting resumed five minutes
later, each of us had entirely shifted in disposition and approach, happy to accept the conflicting
results of our research so long as our practical proposals at the end of our presentation attempted
to reform this situation of conflict. Ultimately, this experience appeared as a moment where the
ordinary temporal script of interdisciplinary collaboration was interrupted in a manner that
actually strengthened the dynamic of the group, drawing into focus the ‘situatedness, informality
and affectivity’20, that is essential to the conduct of research across disciplinary boundaries.
Conclusion:
Holistically, this reflection has sought to show, from the embodied perspective of my own
process - learning to cultivate the sorts of dispositions central to interdisciplinarity - that conflict
plays a centrally constructive, if occasionally volatile role in the formation of team dynamics that
enable collaboration. Further, it has attempted to detail that my experience of conflict was
fundamentally related to the contingency, informality and temporality of our research task in
material and fascinating ways.
Word Count: 1588
20 Michael, “Compromising” p. 282.
19 Michael, “Compromising” p. 282.
18 Michael, “Compromising” p. 282.
6
FASS3999: Critical Reflection
Bibliography
Dixon, Robin. Week 4 Lecture. FASS3999. 2022
hooks, bell. Writing Beyond Race : Living Theory and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis
Group, 2012. Accessed November 6, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Michael, Mike. “Compromising” “Dissent.” In Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary
Research Methods Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A.,
Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/10.4324/9781315714523. 2018.
Tironi, Manuel. “Dissent.” In Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods Lury,
C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard,
E. (Eds.). (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/10.4324/9781315714523. 2018.