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

[Xmca-l] Re: Social Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a Plan thatCould Fix It | WIRED

I miss spoke slightly in my last message. I repeat it below, modified, to
head off misunderstanding.

I understand the sentiment, Larry. But for active academics who want to
have a voice, the apparently inexorable movement toward nano-control both
local and global seems to make *wholesale rejection* unlikely to suffice.


On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:29 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> I understand the sentiment, Larry. But for active academics who want to
> have a voice, the apparently inexorable movement toward nano-control both
> local and global seems unlikely to suffice.
> I have not had time to read Peter's paper, but will get to it.
> I now have copies of the Zuckerman for those that wish a copy.
> mike
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:50 AM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter, Mike,
>> Thanks for engaging with this topic that can seem to be herding cats
>> (earlier metaphor).
>> I want to raise up a specific question Mike asks:
>> Do we come up with (indexes) of identities with  standing??.
>> Indexes as signs pointing or gesturing towards ...
>> What if we don’t (come up with) indexes.
>> What if we singularly and co-generatively ARE indexes  or signs as human
>> beings  expressing our humanity, pointing towards worlds of (significance)
>> within which our existence occurs (unfolds). My being/becoming as movement,
>> inclination, leaning into, indicating the reality of worlds of significance
>> and our response ability to see beyond our individual existence to embrace
>> and sustain and yes -resume- our mutual engagement nurturing worlds of
>> significance.
>> It is not a matter of drawing up a list of indexes, but of living out and
>> being/becoming indexical beings oriented towards worlds of significance.
>> Critique yes, but derived from what is already given.
>> We stand not only between past and future, but equally between tradition
>> and oblivion. (Foulcault).
>> The angel of oblivion that must be answered by our existence as sign or
>> index.
>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>> From: Peter Smagorinsky
>> Sent: November 28, 2016 3:43 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Social Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a Plan
>> thatCould Fix It | WIRED
>> Odd, it worked on my end. I'm attaching the ms. p
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman
>> .ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of R.J.S.Parsons
>> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 6:39 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Social Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a Plan
>> that Could Fix It | WIRED
>> That link to your site doesn't work, Peter.
>> Rob
>> On 28/11/2016 11:19, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>> > I've written something that speaks to the problem that scientists can
>> agree on concepts, but social scientists can't. It originates in Vygotsky's
>> tendency to illustrate complex social concepts with biological examples
>> that oversimplify the process of the development of social concepts that
>> have no "solid" form.
>> >
>> > Smagorinsky, P. (2013). The development of social and practical
>> > concepts in learning to teach: A synthesis and extension of Vygotsky's
>> > conception. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 2(4), 238-248.
>> > Available at
>> > http://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/LCSI/LCSI_2013.pdf
>> >
>> > abstract
>> > This conceptual paper interrogates, considers, and expands on
>> > Vygotsky's notion of concept development. I first review Vygotsky's
>> > account of concept development, including his distinction between
>> > scientific and spontaneous concepts. I next summarize his pattern of
>> > concept development from complexes to pseudoconcepts to concepts, and
>> > in the process problematize his view by shifting his discussion from
>> > biological examples to social examples. The following section examines
>> > concepts as cultural constructions, with attention to the cultural
>> > nature of concepts, and concepts and societal telos. The third section
>> outlines processes that complement and enrich concept development,
>> including concept development's future orientation, the affective dimension
>> of concept development, and creativity's role in concept development as a
>> higher mental function.
>> > The fourth section takes Vygotsky's notion of concept development's
>> > “twisting path” and complicates it by questioning the extent to which
>> > social concepts have a clear meaning toward which any pathway may lead
>> > given their relativistic and ideological nature. This inquiry leads to
>> > the proposal of practical concepts that serve as fragmented
>> > understandings that generally cohere yet are inherently compromised by
>> attention to contradictory means of mediation in socialcultural–historical
>> contexts.
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
>> > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 7:36 PM
>> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Social Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a Plan
>> > that Could Fix It | WIRED
>> >
>> > I just got to this message, Larry.
>> > I agree, everyone on xmca should read the article, not only because it
>> is relevant to Margaret and Carrie's paper vis a vis the trajectory of
>> neoliberal exaggerations of trends visible from Bush onward and if Mill can
>> be used as an authority, back to the origins of modern mass schooling. It
>> is also directly relevant to the kinds of pressures that current and future
>> generations of social science researchers will face in terms of grants and
>> publications. For example:
>> >
>> > * For one, the plan calls for scientists to nail down and agree on
>> > terminology for different concepts so researchers aren’t just talking
>> > past each other. “Often, in behavioral science, people talk about
>> > different phenomena but really mean the same thing,” says Riley. Or
>> > the opposite
>> > happens: Chemists don’t squabble about what oxygen is, but if
>> > psychologists convene a conference on a fuzzier concept like “trust,”
>> > says Colin Camerer <http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/index.htm>,
>> > an economist at Caltech, they’ll spend the first two days disagreeing
>> > about what the word actually means.*
>> >
>> > *That ambiguity gets tricky when researchers are trying to share and
>> > compare datasets, especially the massive ones scientists work with
>> > nowadays. (If you’re trying to compare variables in two datasets both
>> > named “resilience,” how do you know they’re really the same thing?) To
>> > fix these problems, the plan suggests, scientists should settle on
>> > rigorously defined terms. “We need to figure out what we mean when we
>> > say ‘depression,’ and how to define it—either by using the same
>> > measures, or by calibrating with the same framework,” Riley says.*
>> >
>> > ​The first paragraph rings true to me and ought to at least resonate
>> with even the most legitimate peripheral participant on xmca. The theory
>> ladeness of core terms is so very clearly laid out in this imaginary
>> idea-cocktail party. And as the second paragraph makes clear, its all about
>> coding, which David has introduced into the conversation.
>> >
>> > Overall, I think its relevant to both the theory and practice that
>> serves as the content of xmca.
>> > To quote a Soviet favorite. What is to be done?.
>> >
>> > With respect to the current article under discussion, that is the
>> question I have been trying to push vis a vis those of us whose work is
>> professionally tied up with education. Suppose the critique is correct and
>> that the nature of the alternative is specified to the level present in the
>> article.Here is a quote from the conclusion about which there has been some
>> discussion.
>> >
>> > * In other words, we as teachers, students, parents, and researchers
>> > must articulate new ways of​ making selves intelligible in the
>> > contexts of our lives, including producing “identities-with-standing”​
>> > that encompass the qualities we want to promote, identities that index
>> > a way-of-being that brings​ special pride and a sense of self-worth
>> > with respect to qualities that matter. In the case of schools and*
>> >
>> > *classrooms, these qualities might include intellectual curiosity,
>> > serious deliberation, citizen participation,* *​ * *social critique,
>> > and deep knowledge and understanding​.*
>> >
>> >
>> > ​Do we come up with "indexes of 'identities with standing'"? Or "social
>> critique" (no problem with knowledge and understanding, we have test
>> scores.  :-)  ).
>> >
>> > How does this collection of legitimately peripheral participants in so
>> many lifeworlds address this situation as relevant academic "experts"?
>> > (my son often reminds me that an expert is just a drip under pressure).
>> >
>> > Odd historical circumstances when Lenin's "what is to be done"
>> > question is posed in such an upside down confluence of historically
>> > antonymous ideologies and world systems.  ​
>> >
>> > mike​
>> >
>> > *​*
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:16 PM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This may be of interest on the topic of standardization and
>> >> replication and measurement phenomena as what seems to be driving the
>> >> desire for
>> >> (exact) science and how it is colonizing social studies Social
>> >> Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a Plan that Could Fix It The NIH's
>> >> Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research is responding to a
>> >> fundamental shift in social science research.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://www.wired.com/2016/11/social-science-busted-nih-plan-fix/
>> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>> >>
>> >>