[Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Mon Jul 20 06:27:28 PDT 2015
Yes, I agree. My own interest is in social theory and I'd
never heard of "boundary objects." It seems to me that what
BOs do is introduce some social theory into domains of
activity (scientific and work collaborations for example)
where the participants naively think they are collaborating
on neutral ground. So it is not just granularity, but also
the ideological context.
In Yjro Engestrom's article, the home care workers
collaborate with the old couple according to rules and
regulations, communications resources, technology, finance
and so on, which in the unnamed country, the old couple are
apparently cast as "patients". Isn't it the case that here
it is those rules and regulations, etc., which are the
"boundary objects"?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 20/07/2015 11:13 PM, Rolf Steier wrote:
> I think that a particular institution or government system
> could potentially be a boundary object depending on how
> the concept is applied. Star describes three criteria: 1)
> interpretive flexibility 2) material/ organizational
> structure and 3) scale/ granularity in which the concept
> is useful.
>
> She argues that boundary objects are typically most useful
> at the organizational level - so I would say that one
> would have to justify the utility of applying the concept
> to a particular institution, as opposed to, say, an object
> within an institution.
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> 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/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> 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>
> <mailto: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/>
> <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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: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>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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: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>
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%252Bmglassman>>=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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: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>
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%252Bmglassman>>=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <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>
>
> <mailto:lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l]
> Re: The
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list