[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 50, Issue 77 (ETHOS)

Karen-- You are a rare user of the Digest, which is clearly handy but has
the down side of leaving a long trail of text behind it, so i suggest that
when we use it, we delete below
where we are discussing.

Could you repeat, if you can, the specific Ingold ref(s) you are working
from. he is terrifically
interesting and relevant, but guide us to which text we need to read.

Re tertiary artifacts. I will see if it is possible to get Yrjo to comment.
He used to refer to
Marx Wartofsky's use of the term from Models (Dordrecht, Reidel, 1973) where
art and play are centrally  involved in the definition. I suspect that his
use of "models" for deploying
secondary artifacts relates closely to his use of the change laboratory.

I have been ruminating about the idea of tertiary artifacts and think the
topic is well worth
re-visiting. But lets get beyond "chaining" (to borrow a key term in the
discussion of
Vygotsky-Sakharov blocks) and see if we can come up with a stable, "true"
concept less
we end up talking past each other without realizing that is what we are


On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Karen Spear Ellinwood <kse@email.arizona.edu
> wrote:

>   Mike
>  You may be right that we are using the same terms with different
> definitions.
> but i'm not sure about that. so below are my definitions.
>  *
>  *
>  *
>  * Tertiary artifacts are theoretical constructs, such as, ?methodologies
> or
> visions or world outlooks which serve as guidelines in the production and
> application of secondary artifacts, i.e., models? (Engeström 2000/1987, p.
> 67).
>  by that I mean that rather than thinking about the members as individuals
> being the system, the system is comprised of its history, practices, and a
> set
> of beliefs or principles that guide it. these, true, live through the
> members,
> the people who carry it forward. and without people there would be no
> system.
>  i am working my way through Ingold's idea that rather than
> anthropomorphize
> the world and everthing in it, perhaps there is a world of many parts of
> which
> we are one. and so I'm thinking of it maybe like our solar system having an
> elliptical orbit rather than a circular one. there being two focal points -
> one
> is the system with all its parts as I explained above and the other is its
> individual members. hopefully that make better sense.
>   Re: Analysis
>  I am thinking of Ingold's concept of_ processsual tool use_ as a metaphor
> to
> shift the analytic lens from system to individual. the idea of getting
> ready,
> setting out, being in the process of, and "finishing off" is helpful, i
> think,
> to analyzing activity and the actions of individual members. looking at it
> this
> way we can see a particular member's history of contribution to the system
> as
> well as the system's activity as a whole.
>  maybe i'm being too esoteric, but I think Ingold's ideas can be
> particularly
> helpful in addressing composition and history in activity. I am doing my
> dissertation research on the re/co-configuration of technology (the
> unfinished
> product being the toolbar of web-based applications) and so for me it's
> helpful
> to imagine breaking down, if you will, the participants' contributions to
> this
> process by analyzing how they prepare themselves to participate, what
> actions
> they take in setting out to do so, the carrying on of their activity (when
> they
> are in the groove of participating, feeling like full fledged members of
> the
> activity system), and finishing off or completing their participation.  in
> looking at individual actions, this can provide us with a lens for micro
> activity and when looking at the consequences of the integration of all
> participants' actions, i think the same lens provides a way to analyze the
> process of activity as a whole.I appreciate you taking the time to consider
> these ideas. Obviously, they are in formation. I have been thinking about
> them
> for a while. they emerged in doing pilot research on the co-configuration
> of a
> community-based community growth organization. i am not getting the chance
> to
> test drive them with my dissertation this fall with respect to technology
> development. :)
> Your insight and anyone else's is most welcome; Thank you,
> Karen
> Karen C. Spear-Ellinwood
> PhD Candidate, College of Education
> Dept. of Teaching, Learning & Sociocultural Studies
> kse@email.arizona.edu
> phone: 520-829-0749
> kse@email.arizona.edu
> -

(rest of trailing messages deleted)
xmca mailing list