Four solicited reviews:
  1. An Instructional Design Text Book
  2. An encyclopedia article on 'virtual reality'
  3. A research summary on collaboration in work teams
  4. A holistic view of knowledge in industry 
    
> Wed, 4 Sep 2002:
>
> Dear Mr. Ryder,
> 
> I am writing to invite you to participate in a review project for a Senior
> Editor at ??? Publishing.
> 
> We are looking to review a prospectus and proposed table of contents.  In
> the author's own words, "This proposed text supports an instructional
> design course for teacher candidates in teacher education programs and 
> teachers enrolled in education programs.  It will present instructional 
> design as a systematic tool to help teachers, new and experienced, reflect 
> on their teaching as they develop instruction.  The proposed title provides
> instructors with a text to help teachers experience reflectivity as they
> design and implement instruction."  


    

The authors offer a primer on the instructional design process.
The book is aimed primarily for those who are learning the practice of
teaching and for practitioners who are not already familiar with
systematic approaches to instructional design.  The authors' approach
ostensively follows well established ISD models that employ front-end
analysis, formative evaluation, reflective implementation, and summative
evaluation - an approach that assures on-going control of the design with
frequent qualitative hooks for improvement.

When comparing their proposed text with existing offerings, the authors
raise the critical aspect of the needs assessment process as the
distinguishing feature of their book.  As a reviewer, I am at a
significant disadvantage having only the prospectus from which to assess
whether this distinguishing aspect is of any value.  There is not enough
information provided for me to understand the contexts and the conditions
which prompt the authors to emphasize this step within the
context of classroom instruction.

In standard ISD literature where needs assessment is emphasized (e.g.
Kaufman and English, 1979, Mager and Pipe, 1984; Rossett, 1995), the needs
assessment is used as a measure of a performance gap which becomes the
basis for the rationale of instruction.  In business and industry, the
training needs assessment provides the essential rationale for an
expenditure of training dollars.  Managers are asked, 'where are my
employees not performing at the levels of my expectations?', and 'How does
this affect my bottom line?' and 'Can training bring my work force
up to par with my business needs?'

Fair enough.  But how do the authors apply this to the
instruction of children?  Who's criteria are to be used in a needs
assessment?  As a professor of teacher candidates, I might be looking
closely at the recommended criteria for a needs assessment introduced by
the authors.  Is it normative criteria (national and state
standards) alone that frame the basis for instruction?  Where do local
community standards come into play?  For example, would a needs assessment
for a third grade class in a rural, impoverished, Hispanic district like
San Louis Colorado yield to the same instructional goals as that for
third-graders in the affluent urban district of Cherry Creek?  The same
state and national standards apply to both districts.  How might the
teacher/designer mediate between local and national priorities?  I would
be looking for some degree of sensitivity in this book to
address some of these more complex issues of design that squarely confront
classroom teachers everyday.

Similarly, when addressing media and technology options, I would be
looking for approaches that acknowledge the agency of the learner and the
proper place for technology in the classroom.  What kind of design
approaches might place the learner in an active role?  How can technology
be seen as an affordance to be wielded by the learner rather than a
mere didactic medium for instruction?

The 'reflective teacher', action research approach is persuasive.  I would
be looking for a section that describes the benefits of participatory
collaboration within the design process.  How might a teacher utilize her
peers to lend qualitative support and to partner in the design and
evaluation of instruction.

One trend that I have been following with interest is the attention paid
to the learning environment in the context of instructional design.  For
example, environments that employ socio-cultural aspects of learning
(e.g.: Vygotsky's ZPD, Montessori's planes of development, et.al.) can
greatly extend the potency of the learning event.  While the authors
devote some discussion to media selection, the prospectus does not
seem to acknowledge the importance of peer-learner relationships as
mediational means for learning.  Peer interactions can often yield more
potency toward the instructional goal than any amount of instructional
delivery.  To what extent is it useful for the teacher/designer to
consider the socio-cultural environment in the design of instruction?


    

> Mon, 1 Jul 2002:
>
> Dear Mr. Ryder:
>
> A landmark publishing venture is being undertaken by ???,
> Inc., The Internet Encyclopedia. I am serving as the Editor-in-Chief. The
> Encyclopedia will be a three-volume, 2,400-page, 8.5 x 11 trim size
> reference source providing state-of-the-art information concerning the
> Internet as a business tool, IT platform, and communications and commerce
> medium. The Encyclopedia will be available in print as well as in an
> online version. You have been recommended as a potential reviewer for the
> following article:
>
> Collaborative Virtual Reality
>

    The article holds a moderate degree interest for the technically inclined. It reveals the mystery behind 3-D display by explaining various methods of projecting a unique object view to each of the viewer's eyes. The authors introduce the notion of 'collaborative VR' by suggesting methods to represent the presence and positions of collaborative peers within the VR environment. They suggest that such representation opens the way to collaboration across distances, enabling the distant collaborators to coexist together along with the object within a bounded environment. The authors touch on common technical problems that have been associated with the medium and they explain how some of these obstacles can be overcome.

    The abstract boasts of a promising technology that can create a collaborative environment that is 'better than being there'. What is lacking, however, is any serious of definition of the term 'collaboration' or any treatment of criteria that we might use to evaluate whether it is indeed better. In the section "Collaborative Virtual Reality", the authors speak of "quality interaction", but aside from the notion of 'presence' within a shared virtual environment, the authors offer no set of criteria by which "quality interaction" should be measured.

    I was happy to see numerous examples of how collaborative VR is currently being used today in business and educational applications. But the examples left me wanting further explanation and they failed to sell the practicality of the medium. In the General Motors example for instance, the authors fail to show how VR uniquely affords certain types of interactions between engineers that cannot be provided by traditional media for engineering design. What is it that engineers can see in this environment that they cannot conceptualize with a CAD projection? What unique benefits were derived from the collaborative VR experience? How did this collaborative experience uniquely influence the resulting engineering design?

    The Virtual Harlem example leaves the reader without any insight regarding the unique benefits of VR to teach the humanities. Why would an English class be engaged within such a virutal environment? What has this to do with skills of reading and writing? Perhaps the instructional designers had an exellent rationale for using collaborative VR, but the authors failed to convey the instructional strategy and the unique educational benefits of this application.

    The University of Illinois medical school example was more persuasive. It explained the affordances of 3-D projection for displaying spacial apects of anatomy that would otherwise be very difficult to display. However, mention of the collaborative dimension of the technology was overlooked in this example.

    The best example is the one at Abraham Lincoln Elementary School because it shows how the specific perspective of one collaborator adds to the experience of the other.

    Overall, the paper offers an adequate explanation of the technical aspects of the authors' conception of collaborative VR. The paper offers a couple of persuasive examples that show the value of this technology as a visual aid in contexts of learning. The remaining examples fail to persuade this reader and I am left with little understanding of how a collaborative VR environment can "make the collaboration better than being there".

    The lack of a theoretical base is reflected in the bibliography. The authors' seem to draw upon a very narrow set of sources (citing mostly themselves?). Since media theory is not treated in any aspect of of this article, perhaps the authors might prudently remove qualitative claims with regard to the medium so as to avoid the suggestion of hype. 

    > Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005
>
> Dear Professor Ryder,
>
> Please allow me to introduce myself. I am the psychology editor at the
> New York office of ??? University Press.  I recently received a 368
> page, double-spaced manuscript from _________  about Collaboration 
> and Learning at Work.  I would like to know if you might be 
> interested in reviewing the manuscript and giving me an honest 
> appraisal of its merits.

    The draft of the author's text promises to be an important contribution to the literature surrounding Organizational Development. The author's ideas are fresh, provocative, and credible. He draws from a rich collection of important works across multiple disciplines, including educational psychology, sociology, organizational development, and philosophy, and he offers a sound perspective from his own field of cultural-historical activity theory. There is a potential for a broad audience for this work, but its success is unlikely to be realized without further research and significant reorganization of the text.

    The strength of the book is found in the final three chapters. The author articulates a resilient organizational structure he calls 'mycorrhizae', a metaphorical reference to fungi that grow and thrive through symbiotic attachments to other plant life within a soil substrate. Similar to the rhizome coined by Deleuze and Guattari to describe the shifting configuration of media elements with multiple connections and no logical center, the author's 'mycorrizae' provide a similar structure but with nodes that attach themselves to any number of pre-existing organic structures within the substrate.

    The author suggests that work teams of the future are likely to achieve resilience in increasingly complex, volatile and changing environments by means of impermanent attachments, a phenomenon that he calls 'knotworking' Not to be confused with 'notworking', an expression that signifies broken-down, slothful, or dysfunctional behavior, knotworking is a positive concept that the author has (imprudently?) chosen to describe highly functional and adaptable forms of collaboration between loosely connected subjects within an activity. The author uses knotworking to convey a movement of tying, untying and retying together seemingly separate threads of activty.

    While the metaphor is certainly valid, I would suggest that beyond the notworking homonym, the word knotworking is additionally troublesome because it can signify an activity that is tied up in knots and unable to flex or to function. The author seems to leave the meaning of the term to the mercy of the reader through the bulk of the text. It is not until late into chapter-8 that the author shares with the reader his own definition of knotworking. I would urge the author to think about an alternate metaphor to describe the behavior of flexible, fluid and adaptable agents within complex and changing activity systems. But whatever term is selected, the author would prudently define that concept early in the text so that the reader is not left to surmise its meaning.

    The book offers potentially interesting and provocative reading for students in any of the following curricula:

    Education:

    Business: Other:

    The final three chapters of the author's draft were very rewarding and worthy of this reader's effort. But I found the beginning chapters to be lacking a clear direction. At times, I felt insufficiently motivated to continue, asking myself, 'Where are we headed with this research data? What is the point here?'

    After finishing the text that I could see that the book generally followed the structure of author's chosen title. But I found myself questioning the value of such structure. A more motivating approach might be to highlight the notions of social capital, runaway objects, mycorrizae and knotworking from the very beginning of the text, defining these concepts in the earliest chapters and reinforcing them throughout. Since these ideas in my view were the saving grace of the text, I'll offer the suggestion for the author to pursue additional research as a means to further illustrate these particular concepts in practice.

    I am suggesting such an emphasis on the basis of the timeliness of the ideas to both workers and employers in context of today s rapidly changing world of professional work. I can attest to the importance of these concepts from my own experience. In my day job as a software engineer working for a large corporation, I have seen first hand the rapid organizational changes and runaway objects described by the author in chapter-9. Five years ago, I and my colleagues were responsible for 100% of the software developed by the company. We designed the software, wrote and debugged the code, we tested its functionality, and we supported customers who encountered difficulty with the software product. But over time, the majority of colleagues have left the company and our ranks have diminished by attrition and overt layoffs.

    Those of us who remain do little software development work. We are involved in pure design, the front-end analysis that happens before coding begins. The remainder of our job involves technical coordination of production efforts between remote knowledge workers from across the globe. The actual production work: coding and unit testing of our software is now accomplished by skilled technical labor located in Bangalore, India. These professionals do not consider themselves employees, but rather consultants .

    Like the author's mycorrizae , organizations of knowledge workers from third-world countries are attaching themselves deeply within the production activities of the largest corporations in the West. Our Oriental colleagues are willing to work very long hours for comparatively low pay. They are highly-motivated professionals who are flexible, capable, and available anytime day or night to accomplish whatever tasks to which the company is willing to entrust to them. And as the company continues to entrust more and more work to our Indian colleagues, we see these distant co-workers becoming more completely immeshed in the day-to-day activities of our software production. With the success of this global production experiment, corporate management is becoming keenly aware of new emerging sources of cheap technical and intellectual labor, most notably from China.

    The phenomenon I describe and the impact that it brings to knowledge workers in the West looms large today for a broad segment of professionals who have relied on their technical skills for relatively high standards of living. And while some of the concerns raised by these changes are discussed in the final chapters, they are neither directly or generally addressed by the research summaries offered in chapters 2 through 7. As far as I am aware, there are few, if any publications that offer serious theoretical insights related to this very timely and salient phenomenon. This author's analytical tools of Cultural Historical Activity Theory seem well-suited to this particular niche, and I would encourage him to pursue further research related to the phenomenon of globalism in the everyday workplace.

    While I was quite pleased with the author's final chapters, I am sorry to report that the earlier chapters were not as useful. The author's narrative was well referenced and documented from the literature in his bibliography, but for me, his interpretation of the qualitative data at times lacked credibility. I may have misread what the author was saying, but I took serious exception to the author's conclusions from data presented in Chapter 2. The author proclaimed that the broadcast production team was suffering stagnation and defensive encapsulation. He seemed to base this assertion on the team's unwillingness to engage in open argument or to adopt innovation in the wake of a disturbance that arose just moments before air time.

    From my perspective, the production team's unwillingness to engage in debate or to promote innovation just moments before a national broadcast was the mark of mature, rational, and professional behavior. But strangely, the author saw such behavior as a sign of stagnation, and he did not really explain his position beyond citing his prior writing on disturbances in activity systems. The author later revealed that the production team was dissolved shortly after this research was collected, suggesting perhaps that is was the team's unwillingness to change that ultimately led to their demise. But the actual data presented in Chapter-2 lead me to a different conclusion. It was obvious that the team was dissolved for reasons other than their inflexibility. ABC's programming department, an entirely different team in the activity system, was yielding to changes in demographics and public tastes in sports broadcasting. Where professional bowling had once sustained a large and devoted following for decades, younger audiences were now driving requirements for different sporting events including golf and soccer. The PBT crew could support the network s goals only by engaging their training and skills toward a quality production of the current bowling broadcast event. The crew was in no position to influence public taste in bowling or to influence corporate priorities for higher ratings. No matter how innovative and flexible they might be, the PBT crew could not have prevented the immanent demise of the televised bowling events. The conclusions made by the author in this early chapter impacted my confidence in his credibility for several chapters to follow.

    The points raised by the aurhor in Chapter-3 were somewhat difficult for me to follow. It never became clear to me that cooperation between adversarial parties in a courtroom is a value that should necessarily be promoted, even if the administrative goal is to advance an overscheduled docket. Perhaps the author could have used this situation to illustrate the notion of multiple and conflicting agencies within an activity system. The judge's goal was to advance the docket. The attorney's aims were divided between pleasing the judge and carrying out the wishes of their clients. I was pleased with the author's observation that input from the lay clients was totally lacking in the case. The author seemed to carry this theme forward in the following chapter, pointing out that the heath practitioners were focused more on the tools of health care than on actual care and attention for the clients themselves.

    It is probably worth noting that the author used the expression zone of proximal development multiple times in his discussions in chapters 3, 4, and 5. But nowhere does he actually define his use of the term. Merely referencing prior works for the meaning of such an expression is not exactly fair to readers who are unfamiliar with Vygotsky or with this author, especially if the author intends to use the expression repeatedly within the present text. In a similar vein, the author states multiple times that contradictions are indicators of change within an activity system. Since that idea is fairly central in this text, it may be prudent for the author to devote a paragraph or section that would lay out a few theoretical foundations for the assertion. Merely referencing prior works is not entirely appropriate since the concept plays such a primary role in the interpretation of the data the author presents in this text.

    I appreciated in Chapter-6 the author's critique of Nonaka and Takeuchi's model. I think his observations are valid with regard to a lacking theoretical basis in their work. Considering the success of their 1995 publication however, the author would prudently temper his criticism with praise if he intends to persuade many of the same readers. Nevertheless, I believe he has treated N&T fairly in the chapter. My own frustration with the data in this chapter had to do with the technical jargon in the dialogs. The lengthy dialogs of the work team were difficult to follow, and at times they seemed incoherent. Consequently it was extremely difficult for me to follow the author's reasoning regarding the superiority of CHAT over the N&T model as a tool for analysis in this case.

    From the diagram on page 195, I rather expected the author to mention Lewin's (1948) model of action research. An AR comparison might be one method to draw teacher researchers into this particular chapter. Similarly, in discussion of the ontogenetic development of teams (Chap 4, p. 122), might there be any value in addressing Bruce Tuckman's (1995) forming, storming, performing model?

    The use of a fictional account (Hillerman) in Chapter 9 to illustrate the author's five principles of activity theory was, for me, not very persuasive. However, I was interested in Hillerman's memoir in which he described an encounter with a reader that was so disturbing that it led him to place his characters Chee and Leaphorn together in a subsequent novel. This was a great illustration of boundary crossing (that a mere reader should influence character selection in a Hillerman novel), and I was pleased to see how the author related the incident to knotworking

    The tenor of this review began with praise but led to more serious criticism, so it seems appropriate for me to address the more essential question of publishability. Is the book worthy of publication? Yes. Is it likely to gain wide readership? The text has potential for wide readership, but not without significant rework and further research. As it stands, the draft fell short of my expectations.

    As someone with a serious interest in CHAT, I am familiar with this author's writing and I very much respect his major contributions to the field. I believe this author's stature and reputation alone offer sufficient incentive for many academics to purchase this book. Those who may not be familiar with this author's writing have only to scan the bibliography to recognize that this book is rich with ideas spanning multiple continents, historical periods, and multiple disciplines, and that it promises to be a rewarding investment of time for the educated reader. However, due to the weaknesses in the earlier chapters, I do not believe that the text as it stands will generate much enthusiasm in academia. The text is not representative of this author's consistently sharp intellect.

    Having said this, I think the book could have the potential for greatness and for significantly broader readership, but only if the author would consider investing further research and emphasis on the notions of social capital, runaway objects, boundary crossing, mycorrhizae formations, and the problem of physically and culturally separated work teams within global activity systems.

    Martin Ryder
    July 14, 2005 

    > Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 16:15:09 +0100
> To: Martin.Ryder-at-cudenver.edu
> Subject: Review Request
> 
> Dear Martin (If I May?),
> 
> Please allow me to introduce myself as commissioning editor for our
> research level books programme across all areas of economics, business &
> management and accounting.
> 
> We have received a proposal entitled "Using Others Knowledge" from ??
> I was hoping that you might be able to
> give us a review to help us in our publishing decision. The proposal is
> attached to this email, along with several sample chapters which may aid
> you in forming an opinion.
> 
> Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. I would be looking for
> approximately 2-3 pages for the review. I would be able to offer you a fee
> of ?? for a review inside four weeks (i.e. 23rd June ) plus a bonus of
> ?? if you could get the review in a week or more earlier than that (i.e.
> 16th June). You could, if you prefer be paid double these amounts in
> this publisher's books.
>
> I would also like to pass on your comments to the author, though I would
> not give away your identity without your express permission.
> 
> Should be willing to help you can find our guidelines for reviewers
> attached - though feel free to add other comments, as you feel necessary.
> Should you be too busy or unable to offer a review - could you recommend
> any alternative people to try?
> 
> With very best wishes,
>

    "Using Others Knowledge"

    A proposal reviewed by Martin Ryder June 23, 2006

    The authors offer a provocative and reflective treatise on the notion of knowledge and innovation in business and industry. Structuring their arguments around three case studies of innovation within three entirely different contexts, the authors invite the business-minded reader to consider the costs of adopting new knowledge and innovation within an organization. The reading is provocative to the extent that it holds in question the long-held assumption that new knowledge and innovation are universally advantageous. It follows the tremor of an innovation as new knowledge reverberates through, or is dampened by the larger economic community, including the cultural structures, the industrial standards, and the foundational assumptions that rule a particular economic domain. This reading places particular focus at the interfaces where the innovative agent connects to its customers, to its suppliers, and its competitors.

    The proposed work would appropriately be assigned as supplementary reading for any number of graduate or undergraduate classes in Management found in schools of Business or Industrial Science. The study was done in Scandanavia, but the implications are applicable within any industrialized country. Progressive students of Management will appreciate the holistic approaches of analysis offered in this reading. While many professors of Management will recognize the value of this material for their students, it is doubtful that the book would find its way to inclusion among the core reading materials in a Business and Industrial Science curriculum. (Please consider the source of this observation. I was once a faculty member in an Industrial Science program, but I have never taught in a Business school.) . I suspect that the book would command broader appeal in Europe than in the United States, but I have no doubt that the text would become adopted in the U.S. market.

    The research represented in this text has direct relevance to the social sciences (Sociology of Knowledge, Social Construction of Technology, Activity Theory, Actor Network Theory), and education (Performance Technology, Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management). Not surprisingly, potential interest in this particular work may lurk from these allied fields, but only if obvious connections were present in the text. The authors have provided few, if any, overt references that link their own research to the rich and emerging literature coming out of the social studies of technology. Consequently, any potential appeal to allied disciplines will remain essentially dormant until more overt connections are established, including at the very least, some references to works from these allied fields that might inform or elaborate on the concepts presented in this text.

    The strength of the book, in my opinion, is the holistic manner in which the authors approach the subject of .knowledge.. Knowledge extends far beyond what people can articulate in words or represent in media. Knowledge is embedded in our artifacts. It is manifested in our social structures. It is evident in the rules, relationships, and procedures that we take for granted in our day-to-day social interactions. Knowledge is present in all of the mediational means that we employ to accomplish the ends that we seek.

    The authors have done a commendable job to illustrate how knowledge is manifested in the interfaces between the various domains of economic activity: between physical and mechanical objects; between development procedures and procedures that supply the raw materials; between product design and product use. I initially expected to encounter a reductionist view of knowledge that is common in literature intended for a Business audience. I was delighted to encounter in this reading a surprisingly rich, sophisticated, and unconventional treatment of knowledge. For this reason, I found it somewhat surprising that the authors made no apparent attempt to connect with other theoretical sources on the subject of knowledge (such as those listed in the immediate paragraph above).

    There are some weaknesses in this text. The authors could be more sensitive to the average reader where the narrative focuses on specific technologies. In the section describing thermo-mechanical pulp (TMP), I found myself repeatedly going to the Internet for basic definitions such as .defibration. or .shive. or the concept of .freeness. in reference to pulp. The definitions of these terms could easily have been included in the context of their discussion. Similarly, the reader might find it helpful to understand the significance of TMP in contrast to earlier forms of pulp fabrication. I felt especially rewarded when I found such a primer on the Internet along with a picture of a disk refiner. This general lack of sensitivity to the reader.s level of technical understanding can easily be remedied in a subsequent draft of the manuscript.

    The main weakness that I found from an academic perspective is the noticeable lack of references to other works. There is only one chapter in the manuscript that I reviewed that contains a bibliography. Sadly, within this bibliography only two of twenty-plus references are dated within the past five years. And more than half of these references are greater than ten years old. I have touched on the value of references in an earlier paragraph to illustrate how citations in an academic work can be an effective means of connecting the reader to allied academic contexts. The technique of referencing other works can wield a significant rhetorical effect. When browsing through an academic work, professors invariably go immediately to the bibliography in order to get a feel for the type of content that is offered in the present volume. An ample list of quality and contemporary references can signify value to the academic reader.

    Overall, I believe the work is worthy of publication it and has the potential for nominal to somewhat broad readership, especially if the authors are willing to address the weaknesses that have been mentioned here. Many of my comments in this review have been praiseworthy, and the publisher is free to extract any of these comments for promotional purposes.

    Martin Ryder
    (June, 2006)