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

[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The Emergence of Boundary Objects



Alfredo and Rolf,

This theme of spaces and places and what is formed performed and preformed
is a topic that does open up a space for reflection.
I will focus on the comment Alfredo offered in his introduction when he
wrote:
In this paper the aim was to consider boundary objects from the perspective
of the participants "bodies" which stood out in our analysis as
particularly relevant [and revealing] for the achievement of cooperation
despite lack OF "substantive agreement".

I read "substantive agreement" as referring to a shared "subject matter"
The ability to "inhabit" a space and constitute a "place" without agreement
on the subject matter at hand.  A different way of "inhabiting this space
to form a sense of place.
Is this the same type of process that Mead was referring to when he
described how we navigate through a crowd with a way of "knowing" that is
more performance than substantive. This bodily way of "knowing" [tacit or
implicit knowing that is "not yet" conscious" as PRIOR to coming to know in
a more "substantive" way of understanding the "subject matter at hand".
In fact could the focus on trying to come to an agreement on the "subject
matter" before "inhabiting" the space becoming "place" be counter
productive??.

What about the wall that was "banal" [and possibly therefore more neutral
uninhabited "ground"] allowing a "space" to open in which the participants
could arrive at a shared place PRIOR to finding subject matter agreement. A
"bodily" and "phenomenological" entering and inhabiting a space BECOMING
place. This type of bodily "knowing" and its relation to the "subject
matter" at hand seems to open a space/place for a lively conversation.

What is forming is an image of the "table" as a metaphor. We gather to
share a meal and wine prior to focusing on the subject matter at hand. The
table invites us to share a space becoming place around the meal.  Is this
"table" banal or significant in arriving at a shared place?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:20 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Second message that might not have made it through.
> mike
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rolf Steier <rolf.steier@intermedia.uio.no>
> Date: Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:43 AM
> Subject: Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> Cc: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>, "lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" <
> lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> I also want to thank everyone for participating in this discussion, and I'm
> looking forward to developing some of the ideas from our text. I think that
> Alfredo did a nice job of introducing the context of our study, so I don't
> have much to add. The two aspects that Mike brings up are also very much of
> interest to me, and I think quite closely related. I think we treat
> 'distributed imagination' in this instance as a form of place-making for a
> space that doesn't exist yet (the museum exhibition). At the same time, the
> place where this design work is occurring is also undergoing a
> transformation from space to place as the participants construct
> representations and begin to collaborate. Alfredo and I were playing with
> an illustration of these trajectories as merging, though we weren't able to
> bring it together - so maybe this discussion can allow us to flesh out
> these thoughts.
>
> I'm looking forward to the discussion!
> Rolf
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> >  Hi Mike and all,
> >
> >
> >  thanks for recommending our article for discussion, and thanks to
> > anyone who wishes to participate. We really appreciate it! I can try to
> say
> > a bit about the article.
> >
> > Rolf and I did our PhD as part of two different projects that had a
> > science museum and an art museum as settings for the design of
> > technology-enhanced learning environments. Early on in the PhD, we begun
> > talking about notions of space as central in our respective projects.
> During
> > the last year, we shared office and had much more time to discuss. We had
> > always wanted to write something together and the MCA special issue on
> > Leigh Star seemed the perfect occasion.
> >
> > The design meetings involved many participants from different
> backgrounds,
> > from education to architecture and software engineering, and sometimes it
> > was difficult for the teams to advance towards definite solutions. I
> > remember watching the videos from the first months of design work, hoping
> > to find something for writing a first paper. I found different
> interesting
> > issues to pursue, but one episode clearly stood out from the rest. It
> was a
> > design meeting, after many meetings with lots of disagreements and dead
> > ends, in which a discussion that concerned a wall in the museum space
> > unexpectedly appeared to trigger lots of good ideas in the design team.
> It
> > stroke me that something as banal and simple as a wall had been important
> > in making it possible for the participants to achieve shared perspectives
> > on the task and go on. I remembered then to have read something about
> > boundary objects, and it was then that the figure of Leigh Star begun to
> be
> > relevant.
> >
> > In this paper, the aim was to consider boundary "objects"  from the
> > perspective of the participants' "bodies," which stood out in our
> analyses
> > as particularly relevant for the achievement of co-operation despite lack
> > of substantive agreement. Rather than shared substantive understandings,
> > what seemed to allow the participants to proceed was being able to orient
> > towards and perform specific situations that were lived-in (experienced,
> > gone through). We recur to the notions of place-making and
> place-imagining
> > to emphasize this per-formative aspect that has to do with inhabiting a
> > place and finding one's ways around it.
> >
> > We wrote the paper as we were finishing our respective theses/defenses,
> > and we wanted to do something that should feel fun and free. We felt that
> > Star's work was broad and were encouraged to connect different ideas from
> > different scholars. The schedule was tight, and, although I think we
> > managed to put together some ideas, we may have taken many risks in
> > bridging across the different frameworks. I hope that those risks taken
> may
> > now open space for questions/comments to emerge in the discussion, and I
> > look forward to learn a lot from them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alfredo
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> > *From:* lchcmike@gmail.com <lchcmike@gmail.com> on behalf of mike cole <
> > mcole@ucsd.edu>
> > *Sent:* 14 July 2015 19:17
> > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > *Cc:* Rolf Steier; Alfredo Jornet Gil; lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > *Subject:* The Emergence of Boundary Objects
> >
> >   If my information is correct, both Alfredo and Rolf have some time in
> > the upcoming period to discuss their article on the emergence of
> > boundary objects.
> >
> >  So, to start the discussion.
> >
> >  I am finding this article enormously generative of ways to think about
> > some perennial issues that have recently been on my mind. The entire
> > discussion leading up to the formulation of transforming spaces into
> places
> > (and recreating spaces in the process) locks in
> > directly with our current work on the 5th Dimension, which i have been
> > writing about for some time as a tertiary artifact and an idioculture,
> but
> > which most certainly fits the concept of a boundary object.
> >
> >  Secondly, I have become really interested in "practices of imagination"
> > and that is just how Alfredo and Rolf characterize their two
> > installations and the professional teams that cooperate to create them.
> > And they make a new linkage by referring to distributed imagination,
> which
> > is most certainly going to require imagination to fill in the ineluctable
> > gaps, and provide us with some insight insight into the processes
> involved.
> >
> >  Those are my issues for starters. What strikes others?
> >
> >  mike
> >
> >  PS--
> > For those of you who missed this topic, the article is attached.
> >
> >
> >
> >  --
> >
> > Both environment and species change in the course of time, and thus
> > ecological niches are not stable and given forever (Polotova & Storch,
> > Ecological Niche, 2008)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Both environment and species change in the course of time, and thus
> ecological niches are not stable and given forever (Polotova & Storch,
> Ecological Niche, 2008)
>