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

[Rolf Steier]

Hi Andy -
Good catch! I believe that is a typo and should read "despite a LACK of
consensus". Thank you for pointing that out.


I also wanted to follow up on a suggestion that Greg made in the other
thread suggesting we look at David McNeill's work. I had only been familiar
with his earlier work on gesture, but after doing a bit of reading over the
weekend, I found his concept of  'unexpected metaphors' potentially useful
in dealing with some of my questions.(
http://mcneilllab.uchicago.edu/pdfs/unexpected_metaphors.pdf )

Here is a relevant quote describing unexpected metaphors as a form of
gesture:

> *The logic is that unexpected metaphors arise from the need to create
> images when the culture does not have them readily at hand. These images
> join linguistic content as growth points and differentiate what Vygotsky
> (1987) called psychological predicates, or points of contrast in the
> immediate ongoing context of speaking. Unexpected metaphors, precisely
> because they are outside the conventions of language and culture, can
> capture abstractions in novel ways and provide the fluidity of thought and
> language that is the essence of ongoing discourse.*




On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> 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)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>