[Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Mon Jul 20 05:46:28 PDT 2015
Phew!
So would it be correct to describe the government
institutions and political system are "boundary objects"?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 20/07/2015 9:42 PM, Rolf Steier wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
> behalf of
> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
> behalf of
> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
> behalf of
> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
> <mailto: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:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> [mailto:
>
> xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
> behalf of
> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
> <mailto: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:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman>=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
> behalf of
> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
> <mailto: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:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman>=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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:bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com> <lchcmike@gmail.com
> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>
> on behalf of mike
> cole < mcole@ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list