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

[Andy Blunden]

Rolf, what did you mean by "the achievement of cooperation 
despite consensus"?
p. 131,

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
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> 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>
>> 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
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of
>> HENRY SHONERD <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>
>> 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
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of
>> HENRY SHONERD <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>
>> 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
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of
>> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>>>> Sent: 15 July 2015 23:30
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alfredo,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Rolf may have addressed the question of the differences
>> between affordances and constraints in his post.  The way he described the
>> designers as possibly setting up the corner with Pollock at MOMA.  It was a
>> long time ago so I'm not sure if this is the way it was or the way I
>> remember it, but let's just believe this is the way it was.  The painting,
>> I think there were three were set up in a corner off a main corridor.  The
>> lighting was dark, which if you have ever been to MOMA is different, in
>> many other parts of the museum there is a good deal of natural light (there
>> was this great fountain, I wonder if it is still there).  The paintings
>> were on tripods rather than hung on the walls and they were surrounded on
>> three sides by walls.  All of these I think would be considered restraints
>> - pushing me in to the works rather than stepping back away.  It was
>> impossible for more than two or three people to view the paintings at one
>> time and movement was limited, so there were fewer chances for social
>> interactions (you were not going to pick up anybody looking at Jackson
>> Pollock).  The atmosphere was brooding, making it more likely that viewers
>> would move towards internal reflection.  All of these were constraints that
>> canalized perspectives and feelings viewing the paintings.  You really had
>> only two choices, you moved in to the paintings or you moved on, which I
>> had done every previous time coming upon them.
>>>>> The painting itself though became an affordances, an object at the
>> nexus of my journey through the museum, where I was in my life, and my
>> abilities to perceive the painitings.  This was something that could not be
>> designed I think because nobody could think that moment was going to
>> happen.   So then what is a perceived affordance.  Way back when there was
>> also a Manet room.  It was a round room with different variations of his
>> water lilies in a circle.  Almost the exact opposite in constraints it was
>> large, airy, a lot of natural light.  If you were looking to brood you went
>> somewhere else.  In the middle of the room was a wooden structure (not an
>> obvious bench), but you realized as random colors dissolved into water
>> lilies that you wanted to sit down.  You naturally moved to the center of
>> the room and sat (wondering if a guard would come and tell you it was
>> actually an important piece of art and you should get off).  The designer
>> anticipates a desire to soak in the room, to almost get dizzy in the
>> lights, and included in the design the piece of wood that will have the
>> perceived affordance for sitting, changing your concept of time and space.
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>> xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo
>> Jornet Gil
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:01 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we are saying the same things, indeed, or at least more or
>> less. I am quite certain that Bateson referred to energy, and that he used
>> the mentioned examples (or similar ones) to show how the energy that moves
>> the pig is not a direct transfer of energy from the kick, whereas in the
>> case of the billiard balls, the movement of one ball is caused by the
>> energy that the kicking ball brings. I might be wrong in the context within
>> which Bateson was discussing the example, and I see that your account is in
>> that regard is more accurate. But the point is the same: you can not intend
>> the outcomes of a system by addressing only its parts as if they were
>> connected directly, in a linear causal fashion; as if the whole was the sum
>> of its parts. I do see a link with Vygotsky's rejection of S-R and his
>> inclusion of a third element that transforms the whole system.
>>>>> But I totally agree with your comments on design intentions as they
>> relate to ecology, and I, as I know also Rolf does, also like very much the
>> notion of ecology to address these issues.
>>>>> If I read you correctly, and citing Don Norman (whose work I ignore),
>> you suggest the possibility that the relations between design intentions
>> and actual experience could be thought of in terms of different levels?
>> That one thing is to design for what is general, but that we cannot design
>> for the particular. Is that right? If so, I think that Bateson had a
>> similar argument on prediction, does not him? That we can predict on
>> general levels (e.g. population), but not at the level of the particular
>> (e.g., individual). I haven't gone that way, but seems a promising road to
>> consider this jumps between levels of generality or scales.
>>>>> Finally, I am not sure if I get what you mean when you say that we can
>> design for constrains but not for affordances. I still see that the one
>> presupposes the other; you can separate them in talk, but, to me, in actual
>> experience, a constrain is an affordance and vice-versa. I don't see how
>> the road has any inherent constrain that could not be an affordance at the
>> same time. Of course, if you take the normative stance that roads are for
>> cars driving through them, you may be right. But if we think of roads as
>> asphalt on the ground, as yet more ground only of a different shape,
>> texture, and color, how is that a constrain but not an affordance? Or an
>> affordance but not a constrain? Of course, culture constrains once you are
>> within the road and you are driving. But then, the constrain is not in the
>> road, as you seem to suggest, but in the journey; in the journeyman that
>> carries some cultural way of orienting and affectively relating to its
>> environment so that particular constrains are taken for granted despite the
>> possibility of being otherwise. But I might not have thought it well/long
>> enough and of course I might be wrong. I would like to understand your
>> position here better.
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of
>> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>>>> Sent: 15 July 2015 20:32
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alfredo,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been reading Bateson through a cybernetics lens lately (Bateson
>> along with Lewin and his wife Margaret Mead were part of the original Sears
>> conferences)  and I'm not sure that's right or I am victim to the "when you
>> have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" but....
>>>>> I think Bateson was arguing with those looking to apply the more
>> physical/mathematical origins of cybernetics to human or really (pace the
>> pig story) and system that moves beyond simple physical feedback loops.  I
>> think his larger point is that everything has a response within the larger
>> feedback system that exists but we cannot go - what Bateson refers to as
>> MIND.  Attempts to create and control feedback loops, to try and design a
>> system for specific types of feedback is a dangerous proposition.
>>>>> This I think is the reason that affordances really can't be designed
>> into an ecology, only a recognition of the context in which actions are
>> taking place (and I say this having no idea what Gibson's relationship to
>> cybernetics was).  Taking Larry's example of the girl it is perhaps also
>> likely that the girl could have taken the fixing of hair as a criticism, an
>> attack, and it might have destroyed her confidence.  Both make sense in
>> terms of feedback loops, but only ad hoc.  So if a designer does in some
>> way design that experience into the action, even without meaning they are
>> taking a large chance, because they do not know the trajectory it will
>> take.  We simply need objects that are part of our journey, part of the
>> larger context but not designed for purpose, for feedback.  There is no
>> assumption about trajectory.
>>>>> I think Don Norman sort of muddied the waters on this, but in an
>> interesting way.  That we can assume people are going to want to do certain
>> things in a very general environment - when  you enter a dark room you want
>> light, so it is possible to design objects that meet that need that we are
>> more likely to find in the moment that we need them.  But I think that is
>> very different from the idea of specifically guiding feedback loops that
>> even take generalized experience in a certain direction.  I am thinking
>> about Dewey, and he makes a similar argument to Bateson with his concept of
>> transactions.  Although he does seem to think that it is possible to create
>> a larger field of action so we can see at least local interrelationships.
>> But his idea of experience is also very much one of discovery based on
>> needs at the immediate moment - social relations act as a vehicle for these
>> discoveriesn(Dewey of course was writing before Gibson and for most of his
>> life before cybernetics.  I also wonder what he thought of cybernetics).
>>>>> I think I disagree with you, constraints are not about the journey but
>> about the road.  If you build a road on the side of the river you are
>> constrained because no matter what, you cannot turn right.  Your direction
>> has already been partially determined by the designer of the road.  But the
>> mistake we make is in thinking that also controls the trajectory of the
>> individual's journey.  The effect of designers on trajectories of action is
>> important, but limited.
>>>>> The primary place that designers have influence on affordances it
>> seems to me is by being able to create a unique context for an individual's
>> and a group's that limit possible trajectories on an individual's journey.
>> But we should never mistake those constraints for affordances.  I think
>> Bateson might argue it is hubris to do so.  Perhaps this is what you are
>> saying Alfredo.
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:38 PM
>>>>> To: Rolf Steier; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to follow up on Michael's post by asking a question: Are not
>> affordances presupposed by constraints and are not constraints presupposed
>> by affordances? If so, I would wonder whether it makes sense to ask whether
>> museums should be designed for affordances and constraints.
>>>>> What I think is clear from the anecdote that you bring about the
>> Jackson Pollock corner is that whatever EXPERIENCE emerges from being
>> somewhere (i.e. being someone at some time in some place) cannot be
>> INTENDED. And I think this applies both to designers and users, to those
>> who set things up for you to experience and to you, who could not foresee
>> what your experience was going to turn you into before you go through it.
>>>>> I think that the big issue that you bring on the table (to continue
>> with Larry's metaphor) has to do with a difference between physical
>> relations and social relations, and the idea of MEDIATION. Gregory Bateson
>> noticed that the relations that are the subject matter in physics are not
>> the same as those that are the subject matter in communication. He noticed
>> that physical relations (relations that are the object of study of physics)
>> transfer energy in direct manners: a billiard ball hits another ball and we
>> can anticipate the exact speed and direction that the second ball will take
>> based on the energy that is in the system ball + ball + someone hitting. In
>> living beings, the things are different. Bateson explained, if we kick a
>> pig's ass (I think he used this somehow bizarre example) the reaction of
>> the pig is not accounted for by the energy that is contained in the kick,
>> at least not in a direct manner. The energy that moves the pig is from a
>> different source. Before Bateson, it was Vygotsky and his notion of
>> mediation who would most clearly state that social relations are not
>> direct, but mediated.
>>>>> So, how can design go about this? If we, along with Dewey and
>> Vygotsky, consider experience to be a unity of person and environment, and
>> we assume as well that this is a social (not just individual) category, and
>> that how a situation is experienced is also refracted through the social
>> relations within which we engage, the most designers can do is to foster
>> social relations go on, giving afordances to prcesses of signification,
>> without intending to embed meanings. It is about affordances/constraints,
>> but not about how to interpret something, but about going about
>> interpreting. I think.
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of
>> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>>>> Sent: 15 July 2015 18:04
>>>>> To: Rolf Steier; eXtended Mind, Culture,        Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> So after reading the article and the e-mail discussion I'm beginning
>> to think there is a really big issue here that I am trying to grapple with,
>> especially in terms of boundary objects (which I admittedly do not
>> understand very well).  And it relates to the metaphor of the table (both
>> as discussed by Larry and Ingold as interpreted by Rolf).  It is this, in
>> the museum should the place be set up as affordances, perceived
>> affordances, or constraints?  It seems the museum in the study has
>> potential affordances for the users.  The cultural historical moment
>> (unable to think of any other word) of the museum sets the context, meaning
>> those walking through the museum are going to be restricted by the
>> historical and cultural boundaries leading up to the art work, along with
>> the expectations and needs of the individuals moving through the museum,
>> but they will come across objects/artifacts that they think meets the needs
>> of their particular journeys. The posing becomes both an internalization
>> and externalization of the thinking (or are they one continuum at this
>> point?) in which they both make sense of the object in terms of their own
>> meaning and needs and also try and communicate what they found, leaving a
>> potential trails for others.
>>>>> An example that has stayed with me for years.  Living in New York I
>> used to go to the Museum of Modern Art on a semi-regular basis (in large
>> part to try and meet women, always unsuccessful).  I would often visit the
>> Jackson Pollock corner.  I would look and it would always be meaningful to
>> me and I would move one quickly.  Once, soon after graduating college and
>> unemployed and about as frustrated as I'd ever been I viewed the same
>> paintings.  At that moment Pollock made sense to me, a deep emotional punch
>> - the paintings became objects that could bridge my rage, sadness and fear
>> to the next moment in my life.  There is no way a designer could have
>> planned this affordance.  It was based on the movement not just through the
>> museum but my life.  I think back to what my gestures, or even posing might
>> have been at that moment.  A slumping in to myself, an internalization
>> perhaps of a socially sanctioned symbol of rage.  But perhaps a posture
>> also that said stay away.  The place I created in that moment was one that
>> included me and whatever demons Jackson Pollock fought with.
>>>>> Or should museums should be designed for what Don Norman refers to as
>> perceived affordances?  The table that is set up can be one of perceived
>> affordances.  What I grab for the spoon because its shape makes sense in my
>> need/desire to eat cereal.  The focus goes from cultural history setting a
>> general context - Jackson Pollock is a sanctioned way to bridge emotions,
>> to actually setting the trajectory of the act.  I sit at a table, I want to
>> eat cereal, I must follow sanctioned rule systems, I know what I need at
>> that moment and look for objects that fit my needs.  Is the room in the
>> article about perceived affordances.  Should the museum be designed for
>> perceived affordances.  A person coming upon an object may be thinking this
>> because of what it means in our society to be walking through a museum.
>> The object offers an opportunity to make communicative gestures, such as
>> recreating the posture of The Thinker the authors refer to.  I have seen
>> many shows, movies where this happens, from movies from the 1940s to the
>> Rugrats.  This is the cultural cue of what we do with art objects in a
>> museum, we gesture to both understand and communicate.
>>>>> Or should museums be designed as constraints.  In the Metropolitan
>> Museum of Art (sorry for the New York centric places but that's where I
>> spent most of my museum life) the rooms are set up very, very carefully, so
>> that in many ways the objects (at least are meant to I think) to constrain
>> your thinking, so that you are responding to a certain period or school of
>> art, understanding how it all fits together.  The table metaphor fits here
>> as well I think.  Does the table constrain our actions, limiting to certain
>> types of behavior (use only certain types of forks for certain types of
>> food).
>>>>> Okay, too much I know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Rolf Steier
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 6:58 AM
>>>>> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; mike cole;
>> lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your thoughts Larry,
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to pick up on your suggestion of the table metaphor because I
>> think that's really interesting. I believe you are proposing the shared
>> meal as analogous to the kind of orientation work (or perhaps Leigh Star
>> might consider this translation or pre-translation work?) that precedes the
>> task at hand (in the case of our study, the task is design). Excerpt 3 from
>> our study might be relevant here, when in turn 6, the curator turns to the
>> researcher, leans in, and points in order to create a shared visual field.
>>>>> The curator and the researcher can now orient towards the existing
>> gallery in order to imagine future, possible changes in the gallery. The
>> curator is in a sense extending an invitation to sit down at the same table
>> to be able to share his vision for the gallery.
>>>>> This shared meal might of course also be considered designed. Ingold (
>>>>> *Making*) actually uses this same table metaphor to demonstrate the
>> facilitation of activity as an aspect of design - *"Everyday design catches
>> the narrative and pins it down, establishing a kind of choreography for the
>> ensuing permanence that allows it to proceed from the moment you sit down
>> to eat. In such a straightforward task as laying the table - in enrolling
>> into your relation bowl and spoon, milk jug and cereal box - you are
>> designing breakfast."*
>>>>> There is an improvisational quality to the bodily/performative
>> orientation work that is maybe not captured by the shared expectations of
>> sitting down to a meal. But at the same time, we can also consider the
>> workspace of the multidisciplinary design team as designed in the same way
>> that the meal is designed in order to support the objective of the meeting.
>> That is, the, design team must first engage in a place-making activity for
>> their collaborative setting in order to attend to the design of the
>> exhibition space. The designers set the table with a white board, sketches
>> and design ideas, perhaps some coffee... etc., before turning to the task
>> of imagining the future exhibition.
>>>>> Lubomir, you asked - *"who are the placemakers -- the architects or
>> the USERS of designed/created/socially produced spaces?" *I think this is
>> difficult to answer because both architect and user play a role in the
>> place-making process. The architects embed possible meanings (if place and
>> meaning are analogous than perhaps these might be considered 'place
>>>>> potentials') that only emerge through the activity of the users. I'm
>> only thinking through this now, so feel free to elaborate or to disagree!
>>>>> Rolf
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Lubomir!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On to your question, I am tempted to stretch a bit across frameworks
>>>>>> and answer that, the difference between the process of performing an
>>>>>> activity in space and developing a sense of place would be akin to the
>>>>>> difference between an operation and an action as per Activity theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, we must be careful on the distinction between space as a sort
>>>>>> of objective geometrical coordinate, or space as not becoming a part
>> of "an"
>>>>>> experience (in Dewey's sense). In the first sense, the sentence
>>>>>> "performing an activity in space" makes only sense when talking about
>>>>>> geometrical practices, for example; one may think that in some
>>>>>> engineering practices, it is possible to orient to space as space, as
>>>>>> a coordinate. BUT still, the experience of being doing such practice,
>>>>>> if it has import to further development in the person, it must be
>>>>>> refracted through the person's experience; there must be involvement,
>>>>>> and therefore placemaking. In the second case, we might think of us
>>>>>> performing some activity within taking much of it, without noticing we
>>>>>> are doing. It is in this sense that I do the bridge with operations
>> versus actions.
>>>>>> I would not have many problems in associating place with meaning and
>>>>>> placemaking with meaning-making, although I personally would be
>>>>>> careful if doing so, emphasizing the situational and distributed
>>>>>> nature of the process that placemaking attempts to capture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps
>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: 14 July 2015 23:06
>>>>>> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; Rolf Steier; eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity
>>>>>> Cc: mike cole; lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Alfredo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, I should have started my mail with an appreciation for
>>>>>> your article and Mike's choice to bring it to our attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now it is almost clear how you use the word and conceptualize the
>>>>>> phenomenon. I would respectfully ask you for a few more things: what
>>>>>> is the difference between the process of performing an activity in
>>>>>> space and developing a sense of place. I personally interpret place in
>>>>>> terms of appropriation of space in the process of human activity and
>>>>>> the subsequent meaning making which has existential importance for the
>>>>>> individual. The phenomenon of place is on par with the phenomenon of
>>>>>> meaning and placemaking is a process on par with meaning making. How
>>>>>> do you position yourself regarding such conceptualization?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a similar note, who are the placemakers -- the architects or the
>>>>>> USERS of designed/created/socially produced spaces?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, I might be stretching too much the part on place and
>>>>>> distracting from other aspects of your wonderful article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lubomir
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil [mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:31 PM
>>>>>> To: Lubomir Savov Popov; Rolf Steier; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Cc: mike cole; lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Lubomir,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for your questions. I agree that the notion of place has been
>>>>>> around in different forms during at least the last 20 years or so,
>>>>>> from geography with Tuan, technology with Dourish, to the so-called
>>>>>> place-based education. I must also admit that we did not work with a
>>>>>> carefully operationalized definition when using the term in the paper,
>>>>>> but I can of course share my view on the issue and how I understand
>> it.
>>>>>> For me, as in most of the cases mentioned above, place is a way of
>>>>>> emphasizing the experiential in what comes to be socially or humanly
>>>>>> relevant. Most simply, and this most of you probably know, is about
>>>>>> the difference between a rationalistic, geometrical conception of
>>>>>> space versus a more phenomenological one. I read Streek (2010) citing
>>>>>> Cresswell about
>>>>>> place: "Place is about stopping and resting and becoming involved".
>>>>>> This is precisely what we aimed to emphasize in our paper, that
>>>>>> whatever practices were involved in getting things done together in an
>>>>>> interdisciplinary group, they involved a process of becoming involved,
>>>>>> experientially, emotionally, bodily, with the materials and currents
>>>>>> going on in a given situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also read Ingold (2011) warning against the difference between space
>>>>>> and place in terms of space being a reality substance and place being
>>>>>> constituted by subsequent level of abstractions. In my view,
>>>>>> experience is not about abstraction, but about involvement. And place
>>>>>> is about space as it is refracted in intelligible experience; not
>>>>>> about an abstraction over an objective field, but more related to a
>> perezhivanie in Vygotsky's sense.
>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: 14 July 2015 21:55
>>>>>> To: Rolf Steier; eXtended Mind, Culture,        Activity; Alfredo
>> Jornet
>>>>>> Gil
>>>>>> Cc: mike cole; lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Rolf and Alfredo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is your definition for place? How is place different from space?
>>>>>> I ask because people use the words place and peacemaking in dozens of
>>>>>> different ways; it is just mindboggling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lubomir
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rolf
>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+Steier
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:44 PM
>>>>>> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; mike cole;
>>>>>> lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>