Re: AERA papers for web site?

Molly Freeman (mollyfreeman who-is-at telis.org)
Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:29:22 -0700

Martin,

By communities of practice do you mean professions, academics, etc.?

M.Freeman

Naoki Ueno wrote:

> At 11:41 AM 4/23/98 -0400, Martin Packer wrote:
> > I went on to make the
> >suggestion that sociocultural researchers should consider more thoroughly
> >the relation between communities of practice and the larger economic and
> >political structures of society.
>
> Dear Packer,
>
> I have been in Nepal for fieldwork for two months and I was not
> in AERA. So, I do not know your presentation in detail.
> I have some qestions concerning the summary of your presentation
> at AERA.
>
> The questions are the same as my last year questions to Mike and Jay.
>
> My questions to Mike were:
> 1. Micro-meso-macro trichotomy is really produtive?
> 2. Are "meso" and "macro" given?
>
> Here,"meso" is "community of practice" and "macro" is "the larger
> economic and political structures of society".
>
> In the same line of discussion, I do not agree on the dichotomy of
> "arena" and "setting" of Jean in cognition in practice although it
> is an old book and I beleive that she has changed.
>
> I think we cannot observe "community of practice" and
> "the larger economic and political structures of society" directly
> and objectively.
>
> Regarding "community of practice", it is not given from the beginning.
> Rahter, in the practice, we have to organize and make visible of
> community and the boundary of communities by talking about communities,
> by using various artifacts.
> In other words, "community of practice" cannot be defined
> by the researchers who "objectively" observe "community of practice".
> "Community of practice" are marked, defined and made observable by
> practioners themselves.
> Researchers can observe how people organize and make visible of
> communitie of practice with people.
> If researchers push their arbitarary (objective?) definition of
> "community of practice", it merely produces the confusion.
>
> Second, a community is not independently shaped. Rather, it is
> shaped with shaping another community. In other words,
> some "communities of practice" are mutually constituted.
> This kind of analysis is conducted by Wenger under the influence of
> Chicago school ethnography and if one reads only
> "Situated Learning" of Lave and Wenger, one cannot grasp the meaning
> of "communities of practice" well.
>
> Why don't you read recent Lave' s papers and and Wenger's doctorial
> dissertation? Why you are only discussing with Jean Lave who is in
> 10 years before?
>
> Anyway, "community" is not like a container. Shaping and making visible
> of community itself is practice and embedded in practice.
>
> Regarding "the larger economic structures of society", I can do the same
> line of discussion as the case of "community of practice".
> I think we cannot treat "the larger structures of society" as
> the given objective entity.
> Instead, we can ask, for example, who observe "the larger structures of
> society", by what and how they describe it.
>
> Let me show one example.
> This example is related to the case of supermarket of Jean and
> I have previously posted to xlchc.
>
> That is the case of the "revolution of Seven Eleven Japan".
> They opened the first shop 1974 in Tokyo and has introduced
> very systematic network for distribution and exchange and its
> information.
> That system is called as Point of Sale(POS) system.
>
> In POS system, when a customer buys goods, many data such as
> varieties of goods, time of sale, generation, sex etc are inputted
> into a computer. The data are regularly sent to the data analysis
> center and analysed soon. The result of analysis is soon realized
> as the change of varietie of goods sent to each shop and the change
> of layout of goods in the shop.
>
> For example, in the case of lunch boxes, rice balls for lunch,
> even whcih kinds of luch boxes or rice balls customers often buy,
> what time they buy can be analysed. So, if a tuna lunch box is
> not good seller in each shop, it is exhanged soon.
> After Seven Eleven, many others chain shops have imitated and
> followed the POS system in Japan.
>
> The case of Seven Eleven Japan shows that how people
> in practice make visible of "macro" social structure.
>
> Here, "macro" is, for example, customers as mass all over
> the Japan and their behaviors.
>
> This "macro" is not given to people of Seven Eleven.
> Rather, they organize the information gathering system with
> various artifacts and, by conducting data analysis, they are
> constantly grasping "macro". Further, the information gathering
> system with various artifacts can be regarded as part of "macro"
> they are trying to organize and to make visible.
>
> The data analysis center of Seven Eleven Japan can be regarded
> as very modern "centre of calculation", if borrowing Latour's
> teminology.
> There are many kinds of computer documents and they can be
> rgearded as very modern "cascade of inscriptions".
>
> In this way, visibility, or observablility of "macro" is not
> given. As shown in the above, through the data gathering, data
> analysis of customers, and arranging the layout of goods
> in a shop, "the macro" or "the arena" becomes observable,
> accountable and reportable.
> It is possible to say that their formulation or description of
> "macro" and their practice are mutually constituted.
>
> I introduced the above example in order to criticize
> the dichotomy of "arena" (as macro context) and "setting"
> (as micro context).
> If you focussing on practice of people in "data analysis centre",
> you will see their situated practice of "locally organized globalizing ".
> If so, what is "macro"?
>
> I do not criticize (10 years before' s) Jean due to her "not enough"
> clarifying the dymamic relation between "arena" and "setting".
> The problem is before that, this dichotomy itself.
>
> I support Jean' s discussion, theorizing and descriptions in
> many points. Especially, I appreciate her recent papers about
> contexts. However, I strongly oppose the description of context
> as arena and setting in Cognition in Practice.
>
> Before too easily going to the discussion about the relation
> between "meso" and "macro, I think one should focuss on
> "Globarizing in Practice" or "locally organized globalizing practice"
> done by somebody or by yourself.
>
> Naoki Ueno
> NIER, Tokyo