Rosanna, <<What I am not open to is generalization, whether from induction or from deduction.>> Perhaps one difficulty of the Tuckman model is that it is a generalization: a model that purports to describe the evolutionary cycle of all groups. << I would need to observe a little more, the threads, the way they are explored, the relationships that get formed, and how the group possibly solves the problems it stumbles onto (governance included). I wasn't particularly impressed at the call to take some topics off list, limiting the number of posts or the insistence toward following rules that, albeit necessary as a general statement, were regarded as unchangeable. So I'd say the way governance is dealt with is problematic, but I can't say anything yet.>> How would a "governance" that is "problematic" relate to the Tuckman model? One hunch: this kind of loose federation, with members joining at different times, dropping in and out, isn't really a "group" at all in the sense that Tuckman thinks of groups. If that is so, the group is always "forming" for some--you mention that you are new, so you're "forming"-- and "storming" and "norming" and "performing" go on together and endlessly, rather than in clearly marked stages. In which case Tuckman doesn't apply. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Rosanna Tarsiero [mailto:rosanna@gionnethics.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 5:35 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; drseskow@cox.net Subject: RE: [Air-l] Listserv research Steve, You asked: "Does the fact that you aimed your question at one member and another chose to answer speak at all to the point?" I addressed the reply to one member because *that* member (not others) replied to what I had written. Now to address what you asked... "How would you apply the Tuckman model to this group:Air-l? Are "we" at one of the Tuckman stages?" IN all honesty, I don't know whether the Tuckman model is applicable to this group, nor do I know which possible stage would fit. That is because I did join relatively recently and most of what I read were flames (or "counterflames). I would need to observe a little more, the threads, the way they are explored, the relationships that get formed, and how the group possibly solves the problems it stumbles onto (governance included). I wasn't particularly impressed at the call to take some topics off list, limiting the number of posts or the insistence toward following rules that, albeit necessary as a general statement, were regarded as unchangeable. So I'd say the way governance is dealt with is problematic, but I can't say anything yet. "Or is it your notion that the model applies only/largely/manily to "classes," or "teams," or other kinds of "groups" that are more or less formally organized?" Not at all. I raised an epistemological issue, ie whether and when group stage or model might be appropriate. And I am used at working with communities of practice, this is to tell you that no I don't believe models apply to "formal" groups at ALL. However, since I care to keep myself objective, I am open to the possibility to be wrong. What I am not open to is generalization, whether from induction or from deduction. Rosanna Tarsiero