[Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Wed Jul 22 08:17:48 PDT 2015
You are right, Larry, that everything that's going on in
these situation arises from the *relation between a subject
and the Arbeitsgegenstand*, not the Arbeitsgegenstand alone.
For example, there are hundreds of "syndromes" listed in DMV
which in past times or other countries are not considered
illnesses at all.
And apologies for all the silly typos in that message.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 23/07/2015 1:11 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
> Andy, you have helped clarify why I have been [and remain]
> confused on the notion of "object"
>
> I will try to focus on one particular relation you have
> highlighted.
> If I am clear on your distinctions then:
>
> It is not the Arbeitsgegenstand ALONE [the object OF
> labour or the object upon which labour works] where the
> problem resides. The problem is NOT carried WITHIN the
> Arbeitsgegenstand as an abstraction. The OBJECT [purposes
> and motives] includes also the "concept" that the
> subject-person makes OF the arbeitsgegenstand [object OF
> labour].
>
> So it is the concept's relation WITH the arbeitsgegenstand
> [object OF labour] that generates "subject's socially
> shared OBJECTs [purposes and motives].
>
> Andy, I may have garbled your construal of the relations
> involved in these two meanings of "object", my question is
> why not just say "object of labour" [when we mean
> arbeitsgegenstand] AND say "purposes and motives" when we
> mean OBJECT.
>
> In the same way that Dewey wishes he had used a different
> term for "experience" it seems we need alternative terms
> for "object".
>
> I am also struggling to understand the historical movement
> implied in the alternative changing OBJECTs [purposes and
> motives] expressed in how a term is situated.
>
> The notion of "polyphonic" languages with shifting
> meanings and OBJECTS seems very complex and seems to
> require expansive understandings of multiple different
> "language-games" [as Wittgenstein uses that concept.
>
> The labour process AND the conceptual process and multiple
> modern / postmodern understandings of "their" [using
> personal pronoun] relations. Very complex process.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> If I could try to do my thing and draw attention to
> some distinctions in this field ... we have at least
> three different versions of Activity Theory involved
> here plus Leigh Star's theory and in addition the
> theories that have spun off from Leigh Star's initial
> idea. Each is using the word "object" in a different
> way, all of them legitimate uses of the English word,
> but all indexing different concepts. So for the sake
> of this discussion I will invent some different terms.
>
> The German word Arbeitsgegenstand means the object of
> labour, the material which is to be worked upon, the
> blacksmith's iron. It is objective, in that if may be
> a nail to a man with a hammer and waste material for a
> man with a broom, but it is all the same
> Arbeitsgegenstand. Engestrom use the word "Object" in
> the middle of the left side of the triangle to mean
> Arbeitsgegenstand, and when it has been worked upon it
> becomes "Outcome." The hammer that the blacksmith uses
> is called "Instruments" or now "instrumentality," and
> the Rules, whether implicit or explicit, these are
> respectively the base and apex of the triangle.
>
> Engestrom says " The object carries in itself the
> purpose and motive of the activity." So this "purpose
> or motive" is not shown on the triangle, but I will
> call it the OBJECT. This is what Leontyev meant by
> "object" when he talks about "object-oriented
> activity." The OBJECT is a complex notion, because it
> is only *implicit* in the actions of the subject(s);
> it is not a material thing or process as such.
> Behaviourists would exclude it altogether. But this is
> what is motivating all the members of the design team
> when they sit down to collaborate with one another.
> Bone one of the team thinks the OBJECT is to drive the
> nail into the wood and another thinks the OBJECT is to
> sweep the Arbeitsgegenstand into the wastebin. These
> OBJECTs change in the course of collaboration and in
> the End an OBJECT Is *realised* which is the "truth"
> of the collaboration, to use Hegel's apt terminology here.
>
> Surely it is important to recognise that while
> everyone shares the same Arbeitsgegenstand, and ends
> up with Outcome as the same OBJECT, along the road
> they construe the object differently. This is what
> Vygotsky showed so clearly in Thinking and Speech. It
> is not the Arbeitsgegenstand or some problem carried
> within it alone which motivates action, but *the
> concept the subject makes of the Arbeitsgegenstand*!
>
> Then Leigh Star comes along and applies (as Lubomir
> astutely notices) postmodern ideology critique to the
> collaboration within an ostensibly neutral
> infrastructure - that is, in Engestrom's terms Rules
> and Instruments, which are naively supposed to be
> there just to aid collaboration. And Leigh Star shows
> that this is an illusion; the Rules and Instruments
> are in fact residues of past collaborations which
> carry within them the Outcomes, i.e., realised OBJECTs
> of past collaborations. It is these one-time OBJECTs,
> now-Instruments+Rules which are the Boundary Objects.
>
> But it seems that other have grasped the postmodern
> critique elements of this idea, that apparently
> ideologically neutral obJects (in the expanded sense
> of socially constructed entities, usually far more
> than OBJects - as things, or artefacts, including
> institutions - fossilised "systems of activity") and
> recognised the shared OBJECT as a Boundary Object,
> reflecting the fact not everyone has the same concept
> of the OBJECT, as Vygotsky proved.
>
> But what Engestrom has done, by placing the Boundary
> Object in the place of Object on his triangle, joining
> two "systems of activity," for the purpose of looking
> not at cooperation but rather the conflict within the
> broader collaboration. The reconstrual of the
> Arbeitsgegenstand is deliberate and aimed to change
> the relation between Subject and obJECT (here
> referring to the Hegelian "Object" usually rendered as
> "the Other.") thereby introducing yet a different
> strand of postmodern critique into the equation,
> namely Foucault's Poststructuralism, to mind mind,
> with great effect.
>
> OK, so we have Arbeitsgegenstand. OBJECT, Boundary
> Object, OBject, obJECT and obJect. And I might say,
> the situation is almost as bad in Russian and German,
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 22/07/2015 5:46 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for your appreciation, Lubomir.
>
> To clarify my question in the previous e-mail, I
> wish to add that I am a bit familiar with the
> distinction between object and tool in activity
> theory, though not enough yet. I can see, and we
> were aware through the process, that what we
> describe in the paper has to do with how the
> object of design emerged and developed for the
> team in and as they were dealing with, developing,
> and resorting to particular means or tools. But I
> guess we could say that in our analyses there is a
> lack of a historical account of the object that
> goes over and above the particular instances
> analyzed. Although we provide with some
> ethnographic contextualization of the team's
> developmental trajectories, all of our discussion
> is grounded on concrete events and their
> transactional unfolding. We did not resort to the
> distinction between object and means because it
> seemed to be the same thing in the there and then
> of the episodes analyzed, at least in what
> participants' orientations concerned. If they ori
> ented towards anything beyond what was there in
> the meetings, it was in and through the meetings'
> means. How would then the distinction between
> means and object have added to our understanding
> of the events? (And this is not to doubt of the
> contribution from such a distinction, I really
> mean to ask this question for the purpose of
> growing and expanding; and as said before, part of
> the answer may be found in Engestrom et al.
> contribution).
>
> As to how we would position our contribution with
> regard to activity theory, I would reiterate what
> we said when introducing the paper for discussion:
> we begun with the purpose of working outside any
> particular framework and think, as we think Star
> did, broadly, drawing from several sources. These
> included cultural historical psychology,
> ethnomethodology, and discourse analysis. But also
> the ideas about Experience (in the
> Deweyan/Vygotskyan sense) that have been the topic
> in this discussion were in the background all the
> time, but we did not operationalize them in terms
> of any particular theory. This is not to say that
> we went for the "anything goes;" we tried our best
> to keep internal coherence between what we said
> about the data, and what the data was exhibiting
> for us. Perhaps Rolf would like to add to this.
>
> I think the questions you are rising about
> activity theory are very much in the spirit of
> what I am after, and I am not the best to answer
> them; but this xmca list may be one of the best
> places to be asking those questions.
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From:
> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf
> of Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu
> <mailto:lspopov@bgsu.edu>>
> Sent: 21 July 2015 21:16
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary
> Objects
>
> Dear Alfredo and Rolf,
>
> There are also a few other things that I would
> like to bring to this discussion.
>
> First, you have a wonderful project and a great
> article. It is a great example of an
> interpretativist approach to everyday life
> phenomena. Really interesting and fascinating. It
> is all about our minds, culture, and activity.
>
> However, how is your approach related to classic
> Activity Theory? Some people might find that it is
> a Symbolic Interactionist approach; others might
> say it one of the Deconstructivist approaches that
> emerge right now or have emerged in the last
> decades; still other people might look for
> connections to ethnomethodology, discourse
> analysis, etc. I am not trying here to impose a
> template or categorize your methodology -- just
> raising a question about its connection to
> Activity Theory. And again, I am not saying that
> this is a shortcoming -- I would like to clarify
> certain things for myself.
>
> For example: What are the limits and boundaries of
> Activity Theory? How much we can fuse Activity
> Theory and Postmodernist approaches? What do we
> gain when we infuse new methodological,
> epistemological, and ontological realities into
> Activity Theory? What do we lose? What is the
> threshold when it is not Activity Theory anymore?
> (I mean here Activity Theory as research
> methodology.) Do we need to call something
> Activity Theory if it is not? If we create a new
> approach starting with Activity Theory, do we need
> to call it Activity Theory?
>
> Activity Theory is a product of Modern thinking,
> Late Modernism. The discourse you use in your
> paper borrows strongly from Postmodern discourses
> and approaches. I am not sure that Modernist and
> Postmodernist discourses can be fused. We can
> borrow ideas across the range of discourses, but
> after we assimilate them for use in our project,
> they will "change hands" and will change their
> particular discourse affiliation and will become
> completely different components of a completely
> different discourse. Mostly because the
> epistemologies and ontologies are different; and
> the concepts are very different despite of the
> similarities in ideas and words used to name these
> ideas.
>
> Just a few questions that I hope will help me
> understand better what is going on in the realm of
> CHAT.
>
> Thank you very much for this exciting discussion,
>
> Lubomir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Blspopov>=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On Behalf Of
> Alfredo Jornet Gil
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:36 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary
> Objects
>
> Andy, all,
> I just recently begun to read Engeström and
> cols. contribution to the special issue, which is
> very interesting. I have particular interest in
> the difference that they point out between
> boundary object on the one hand, and object and
> instrumentality as different aspects of activity
> theory on the other. Rolf and I came across this
> distinction while writing our own paper. We
> noticed that the museum space, through multiple
> forms of presentations (e.g., the room itself, a
> floor plan, performances of being in the room
> while not being there, etc), was a means, an
> instrument for achieving a final design product.
>
> At the same time, the museum space begun to become
> the object of the designers' activity. Since this
> were interdisciplinary designs, and the partners
> had multiple, sometimes opposite interests, what
> seemed to be a common object for all them was the
> museum as place. Thus, most representations of it
> begun to be made in terms of narratives about
> being there. That was the orientation that seemed
> to stick them together.
>
> Thus, the museum space was both object and
> instrument. We wondered whether we should do
> connections to notions of object of activity and
> tools, but we felt that that road would take us
> away from the focus on body and experience. We
> ended up drawing from Binder et al (2011), who
> differentiate between object of design, the design
> thing that work delivers, and the object's
> constituents (or means of presentation before the
> design thing is finished).
>
> When bringing the notion of boundary object into
> the picture, we could discuss the history of
> development of these relations between the
> different forms of presentations of the museum
> means towards the object without necessarily
> articulating the differences between the two. One
> advantage was that boundary objects focus on the
> materiality, which, as already mentioned, is not
> about materials in themselves, but about
> consequences in action. From the point of view of
> the persons implicated in the process, the museum
> space as object of design was an issue in and
> through the working with some material, some form
> of presenting it or changing it. Both object and
> instrument seemed to be moments of a same
> experience. But I still want to learn what we may
> get out of making the distinction between object
> and tool, as Engeström and colleagues do (so I
> should perhaps read more carefully their study
> rather than be here thinking aloud).
> Any thoughts?
>
> Alfredo
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From:
> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf
> of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> Sent: 21 July 2015 14:38
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary
> Objects
>
> Henry, anything. But the point is objects which
> play some
> role in mediating the relation between subjects,
> probably a
> symbolic role, but possibly an instrumental role,
> too, and
> one subject challenges that role and turns the
> object into
> its opposite, and changes the terms of collaboration.
> A number of examples spring to mind.
>
> * Loaded, especially pejorative words, such as
> Queer, are
> embraced by a despised group who take control
> of the
> word and assertively embrace it;
> * The post-WW2 women's peace movement who
> deployed their
> stereotype as housewives and mothers to
> magnificant effect;
> * ISIS's hatred and fear of women turned into a
> weapon
> against them by Kurdish women fighters (ISIS
> flee before
> them rather than in shame);
> * The Chartists who turned the British govt's
> stamp which
> put newspapers out of reach of workers
> against them by
> printing the Northern Star as a stamped
> newspaper and
> obliging workers to club together in groups
> to buy and
> read it, thus making the paper into a glorious
> organising tool;
> * the naming of Palestine and the Occupied
> Territory /
> Israel is the struggle over the meaning of a
> shared
> object (the land);
> * Gandhi's use of the landloom as both a weapon
> and tool
> for Indian independence and self-sufficiency,
> raising it
> from the status of obsolete and inferior
> technology to a
> symbol of India.
>
> In think this is not what Susan Leigh Star had in
> mind when
> she introduced the term, but core point is that the
> ideological construction placed upon an object is
> subject to
> contestation, and if successful, the re-marking of an
> artefact is a tremendously powerful spur to
> subjectivity.
>
> Yrjo raises the question: is the"boundary object" a
> mediating artefact or the object of work
> (/Arbeitsgegenstand/)? I think the answer is that
> in these
> cases it is a mediating artefact, tool or symbols
> according
> to context. In principle it is not the Object in the
> Engestromian sense, though it might happen to be.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 21/07/2015 12:27 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>
> Rolf, Alfredo, Andy,
> I got to thinking about the photographs as
> boundary objects. What about video?
> Henry
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> Yes, thinking about this overnight, I came
> to see that it was the photographs that
> Thomas was endeavouring to turn to use to
> recover his humanity. This is consonant
> with how Yrjo was using the idea in
> relation to the subsistence farmers'
> movement in Mexico and their corn.
> Thanks Rolf!
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 21/07/2015 3:04 AM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>
> This makes sense to me, Andy. I could
> also interpret the photographs as
> boundary objects as they support the
> coordination of therapy activities
> between Thomas and the nurse. I think
> it depends on the aspect of activity
> one is attempting to explore as
> opposed to the definite identification
> of what may or may not be a boundary
> object. This is only my opinion though!
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Andy
> Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>
> Or alternatively, the boundary
> object in question is
> Thomas's aged body, which is
> subject to an
> interpretation which Thomas
> contests by showing
> photographs of far away places
> and explaining how
> well-travelled he is, seeking an
> interpretation of
> himself as a well-travelled and
> experiences
> man-of-the-world.
> Does that make better sense?
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 20/07/2015 11:27 PM, Andy
> Blunden wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree. My own interest
> is in social theory
> and I'd never heard of
> "boundary objects." It
> seems to me that what BOs do
> is introduce some
> social theory into domains of
> activity (scientific
> and work collaborations for
> example) where the
> participants naively think
> they are collaborating
> on neutral ground. So it is
> not just granularity,
> but also the ideological context.
>
> In Yjro Engestrom's article,
> the home care workers
> collaborate with the old
> couple according to rules
> and regulations,
> communications resources,
> technology, finance and so
> on, which in the
> unnamed country, the old
> couple are apparently
> cast as "patients". Isn't it
> the case that here it
> is those rules and
> regulations, etc., which are
> the "boundary objects"?
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 20/07/2015 11:13 PM, Rolf
> Steier wrote:
>
> I think that a particular
> institution or
> government system could
> potentially be a
> boundary object depending
> on how the concept
> is applied. Star
> describes three criteria: 1)
> interpretive flexibility
> 2) material/
> organizational structure
> and 3) scale/
> granularity in which the
> concept is useful.
>
> She argues that boundary
> objects are typically
> most useful at the
> organizational level - so I
> would say that one would
> have to justify the
> utility of applying the
> concept to a
> particular institution,
> as opposed to, say, an
> object within an institution.
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at
> 2:46 PM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:
>
> Phew!
> So would it be
> correct to describe the
> government
> institutions and
> political system are
> "boundary objects"?
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 20/07/2015 9:42
> PM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>
> Hi Andy -
> Good catch! I
> believe that is a typo
> and should
> read "despite a
> LACK of consensus".
> Thank you for
> pointing that out.
>
>
> I also wanted to
> follow up on a
> suggestion that
> Greg made in the
> other thread
> suggesting we look
> at David
> McNeill's work. I had only
> been familiar
> with his earlier
> work on gesture, but
> after doing
> a bit of reading
> over the weekend, I
> found his
> concept of
> 'unexpected metaphors'
> potentially
> useful in dealing
> with some of my
> questions.(
> http://mcneilllab.uchicago.edu/pdfs/unexpected_metaphors.pdf
> )
>
> Here is a
> relevant quote describing
> unexpected
> metaphors as a
> form of gesture:
>
> /The logic is
> that unexpected
> metaphors arise
> from the
> need to
> create images when the
> culture does
> not have
> them readily
> at hand. These images
> join linguistic
> content as
> growth points and
> differentiate what
> Vygotsky
> (1987) called psychological
> predicates, or
> points of
> contrast in the
> immediate ongoing
> context of
> speaking.
> Unexpected metaphors,
> precisely
> because they
> are outside
> the conventions of
> language and
> culture,
> can capture
> abstractions in novel
> ways and
> provide the
> fluidity of
> thought and language
> that is the
> essence
> of ongoing
> discourse./
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 20,
> 2015 at 1:00 PM, Andy
> Blunden
>
> <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>> wrote:
>
> Rolf, what
> did you mean by "the
> achievement of
> cooperation
> despite consensus"?
> p. 131,
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 17/07/2015
> 8:45 AM, Rolf Steier
> wrote:
>
> Are we
> allowed to ask
> questions about our
> paper as
> well? I
> hope so!
>
> For a
> little context -in our
> paper, we
> identified
>
> particular kinds of
> episodes
> in which participants
> from different
>
> disciplines seek coherence
> and
> continuity of shared
> representations
> through
> bodily
> action. These
> actions
> include gesture,
> movement and physical
>
> performance linking the
> present
> material artifacts to
> objects of
> design.
> Most of
> these episodes
> seem to
> involve some form of
> improvisation,
>
> resourcefulness or creativity,
> and I'm
> not fully sure how to
> characterize
> these
> aspects
> of the
>
> interactions. In most cases, the
> participants seem
> to be
> searching for the
> best
> words or material
> representation to
> convey a
>
> particular intention -
> when this
> becomes problematic
> or limiting
> - they
> almost
> fall back on what
> is
> available - these
> improvised bodily
>
> performances - as a way of
>
> maintaining continuity, and of
> inviting
>
> co-participants into a shared and
> imagined
> space. These bodily
> actions don't
> seem to
> begin the
> proposals, but
> are in a
> sense *discovered* by the
> participants.
>
>
> I think
> there is something
> really fascinating
> about
> this kind of creativity
> and
> resourcefulness in
> interaction that
> could be
> explored
> more deeply - and
> that I'm
> having trouble
> articulating.
> Maybe some
> of you
> have some thoughts
> on this?
> Alfredo - I know
> we've talked
> about this
> a bit
> before so maybe you
> can add a
> little clarity to my
> question.
>
> On Thu,
> Jul 16, 2015 at 9:37
> PM, HENRY SHONERD
>
> <hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>>>>
> wrote:
>
> Alfredo,
> Thank
> you very much for
> the sketch of your
>
> roots. I taught English in
>
> Puigcerda and Barcelona
> for 5 years
> back in
> the
> early 70s, just before
>
> Franco died. (He died the
> day I
> boarded the
> plane
> back to the U.S.) Place
> and
> language are interesting,
> especially where
>
> language varieties meet.
>
> Boundaries. I know mostly
> from my
> familiarity
> with
> the music of Catalunya
> and
> Mallorca that the speech
> communities in
> each
> of those places treasure
> their
> unique languages
> (Catalan and
>
> Mallorquin), yet see a
> commonality
>
> vis-a-vis their
> separateness from
> Castilian
>
> Spanish, the national language
> of
> Spain from 1492 on. I
> see a parallel
>
> between your work on boundary
>
> objects, where individual
> persons
> collaborate
> to
> create spaces, AND
>
> boundary objects
> "negotiated" by groups of
>
> people who live in real
> spaces.
> I am
> thinking, among other
> things, of
>
> indigeneity, a big topic
> here in New
>
> Mexico, with so many
> Native Americans.
>
> Assymetries of power.
> Bullying.
>
> Testing and curriculum become
> instruments of
> war
> by other means. I hope my
> tone
> does not distract
> from, nor
> diminish, the
>
> optimism created by this
>
> thread. Yet I think that
> optimism is so
>
> precious because of the
> ground (the
>
> world) of the dialog.
> Henry
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2015, at
> 12:13 PM, Alfredo
>
> Jornet Gil
> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>>>>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Well, you could say
> that I am partly
>
> Catalan. I grew up in
> the province
>
> of
> Valencia, where Catalan
> language is
>
> official language together
> with
>
> Castilian Spanish.
> Although Valencia (the
>
> county) and Catalonia are
>
> different regional
> counties, Catalan
> is spoken
> in
> Catalonia, Valencia, and
> the
> Balear Islands. Some
> call the three
>
> together as the Catalan
> Countries.
> I
> don't like borders, but
> I respect
> and enjoy
>
> cultural diversity.
>
>
> Standardized testing,
> and the whole
>
> assumptions behind it,
> are an issue
>
> also
> in Spain and in
> Catalonia; but
> education
> has
> been so battered during
> the
> last years of right-wing
> government that I
> the
> debate have been more
> about
> means and access
> than about
> contents and
> aims.
> Which in some sense
> may
> be good because it
> moves the
> debates away
> from
> performance. But I have
> been
> living outside of
> Spain for eight
> years
> now,
> so I am not the best to
>
> update you on this either.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From:
>
> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>>
>
>
> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>>>
> on
> behalf of
> HENRY
> SHONERD
> <hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>>>>
>
>
> Sent: 16 July 2015 19:54
>
> To: eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity
>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re:
> The Emergence of
>
> Boundary Objects
>
>
> Alfredo,
>
> Yes, you have answered
> my question
> very
>
> nicely! I especially
> appreciate
>
> that
> you were willing to
> wrestle with my
>
> question, despite your lack of
>
> familiarity with the
> issues here in
> the U.S.
> Am I
> wrong, or are you
>
> Catalan? In which case
> your experience in
>
> Catalunya would take you to a
>
> different place in critiquing
> schooling there,
>
> though not necessarily
>
> unconnected to yours and
> Rolf's work on
>
> boundary objects. I just
> met for
> the
> second day in a row
> with a friend
> who is
> the
> liaison between our public
>
> school district and a
> children's science
>
> museum called Explora. I
> feel like
> I'm
> swimming in this
> thread, talk about a
> mixed
> metaphor!
>
> Henry
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2015,
> at 12:18 AM,
> Alfredo
>
> Jornet Gil
>
> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>>>>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> I am sorry, Henry,
> but I am
> not very
>
> familiar with
> high-stakes
>
>
> standardized testing (as
> different to
>
> standardized testing in
> general) or
> with
> common core (which I
> quickly read
> is an
> issue
> in US). But I would say
> that,
> if (school)
> curricula were to be
>
> consistent with the view of
>
> education as the practice
> of creating
>
> conditions for certain
> attitudes and
>
> dispositions to
> emerge--which is what
> I was
>
> suggesting in the
> paragraph you
>
> copy--curricula would not
> be so much about
>
> standardized contents, but
> about
> human
> sensitivities and
> relations. So,
> I would
> say,
> no, standardized
>
> testing is not in
> principle in line
> with what
> I was
> trying to say.
>
>
> I was trying to
> make a distinction
>
> between trying to
> design someone's
>
>
> particular experience, and
> trying to
> design
>
> conditions for the development
> of
> attitudes and
> orientations. The
> first is
>
> likely impossible. The second
> seems
> to make more sense.
>
>
> One may of course
> wonder
> whether those
>
> attitudes and
> orientations can
>
> be
> considered general, and
> then form
> part of
>
> standardize measures instead
> of
> the traditional
> "contents and
> skills". But
>
> measuring assumes some
>
> quantitative increment in
> a particular
> aspect
> as
> the result of learning.
>
> Growth and development,
> however, are about
>
> qualitative change. So, as
> soon
> as
> you start measuring you
> would be
> missing
>
> growth and development. So,
>
> again, no. I would not say
> that
> high-stakes
>
> standardized testing is in
> line
> with
> what I was trying to say.
>
>
> I hope I have
> answered your
> question,
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
>
> From:
>
> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>>
>
>
> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>>>
> on
> behalf of
> HENRY
> SHONERD
> <hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>>>>
>
>
> Sent: 16 July 2015
> 07:48
>
> To: eXtended Mind,
> Culture,
> Activity
>
> Subject: [Xmca-l]
> Re: The
> Emergence of
>
> Boundary Objects
>
>
> Alfredo, you say:
>
>
> "However, we
> cannot aim at
> determining
>
> any particular
>
> situation/experience. The
> same may be said
> about
> EDUCATION. We cannot
>
> intend to communicate the
> curriculum
> and make
> it
> the content of the
>
> students' experience in
> the way we
> intend. But
> we
> can try to create the
>
> conditions for certain
> attitudes and
>
> dispositions to emerge."
>
>
> Would you say that
> high-stakes
> standardized
> testing is in
> line with
>
> your
> construal of
> curriculum design?
> How about
>
> common core?
>
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 15,
> 2015, at 5:29 PM,
>
> Alfredo Jornet Gil
> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>>>>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks a lot
> for the
> clarifications. I see now
> why it
>
> may be said that
>
>
> designers can aim at
> designing for
> constrains
> but
> not for affordances. I
> see
> that this way of
> talking is part of a
>
> designers' way to get things
> done,
> and that it may
> indeed be an
> effective
> way
> to design for
>
> place-making, as in the
> example that
> Michael
> gives
> of MOMA. Indeed, much of
> what
> we report in our
> study is about
> designers
>
> talking about how spatial
>
> features might afford some
> experiences
> in the
>
> museum while constraining
> others.
>
>
> I must admit,
> however, that I
>
> still consider
> the distinction
>
>
> problematic from an
> analytical perspective
>
> whenever our object of
> study is
>
> experience, situated
> action, or design as
>
> situated practice. A more
> correct
> way
> to talk is that
> affordances and
> constrains
> are
> the positive and
> negative
> sides/interpretations of
> a single
>
> unitary category. As an actual
> and
> concrete phenomenon,
> walking into
> a musuem
>
> implies both affordances and
>
> constrains at the same
> time, whether
> intended
> or
> not. Which makes me wonder
>
> whether other terminology,
> such as
> Ingold's
>
> notion of "correspondence,"
> might
> be more appropriated
> when we
> talk about
> how
> materials and actions
>
> become entangled into
> particular
> trajectories.
>
>
> In any case,
> and as Rolf
> emphasizes,
> what the
> designers in
>
> our study
>
>
> indeed do is to IMAGINE
> ways of being
> in the
>
> museum. Imagination versus
>
> prediction may be an
> interesting topic
>
> emerging here for further
> inquiry
> into
> design work.
>
>
> Another
> important (and
> related)
>
> issue that I
> think is
> emerging here
>
> has
> to do with the level
> of generality at
> which
> design intentions can be
>
> expected to work (just as
> Bateson
> argued with
>
> regard to prediction). At the
> level
> of generic social
> processes, and
> given a
>
> particular
>
> cultural-historical
> background, we as
>
> designers may try to make some
>
> generic situations more
> likely to
> occur than
>
> others (facilitating that more
> or
> less people end up
> together in a given
>
> place). However, we cannot
> aim at
>
> determining any particular
> situation/experience. The
> same may be
> said about
>
> EDUCATION. We cannot intend to
> communicate the
>
> curriculum and make it the
>
> content of the students'
> experience in
> the way
> we
> intend. But we can try to
>
> create the conditions for
> certain
> attitudes
> and
> dispositions to emerge.
>
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
>
> From:
>
> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list