[Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
Larry Purss
lpscholar2@gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 08:11:17 PDT 2015
Andy, you have helped clarify why I have been [and remain] confused on the
notion of "object"
I will try to focus on one particular relation you have highlighted.
If I am clear on your distinctions then:
It is not the Arbeitsgegenstand ALONE [the object OF labour or the object
upon which labour works] where the problem resides. The problem is NOT
carried WITHIN the Arbeitsgegenstand as an abstraction. The OBJECT
[purposes and motives] includes also the "concept" that the subject-person
makes OF the arbeitsgegenstand [object OF labour].
So it is the concept's relation WITH the arbeitsgegenstand [object OF
labour] that generates "subject's socially shared OBJECTs [purposes and
motives].
Andy, I may have garbled your construal of the relations involved in these
two meanings of "object", my question is why not just say "object of
labour" [when we mean arbeitsgegenstand] AND say "purposes and motives"
when we mean OBJECT.
In the same way that Dewey wishes he had used a different term
for "experience" it seems we need alternative terms for "object".
I am also struggling to understand the historical movement implied in the
alternative changing OBJECTs [purposes and motives] expressed in how
a term is situated.
The notion of "polyphonic" languages with shifting meanings and OBJECTS
seems very complex and seems to require expansive understandings of
multiple different "language-games" [as Wittgenstein uses that concept.
The labour process AND the conceptual process and multiple modern /
postmodern understandings of "their" [using personal pronoun] relations.
Very complex process.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> If I could try to do my thing and draw attention to some distinctions in
> this field ... we have at least three different versions of Activity Theory
> involved here plus Leigh Star's theory and in addition the theories that
> have spun off from Leigh Star's initial idea. Each is using the word
> "object" in a different way, all of them legitimate uses of the English
> word, but all indexing different concepts. So for the sake of this
> discussion I will invent some different terms.
>
> The German word Arbeitsgegenstand means the object of labour, the material
> which is to be worked upon, the blacksmith's iron. It is objective, in that
> if may be a nail to a man with a hammer and waste material for a man with a
> broom, but it is all the same Arbeitsgegenstand. Engestrom use the word
> "Object" in the middle of the left side of the triangle to mean
> Arbeitsgegenstand, and when it has been worked upon it becomes "Outcome."
> The hammer that the blacksmith uses is called "Instruments" or now
> "instrumentality," and the Rules, whether implicit or explicit, these are
> respectively the base and apex of the triangle.
>
> Engestrom says " The object carries in itself the purpose and motive of
> the activity." So this "purpose or motive" is not shown on the triangle,
> but I will call it the OBJECT. This is what Leontyev meant by "object" when
> he talks about "object-oriented activity." The OBJECT is a complex notion,
> because it is only *implicit* in the actions of the subject(s); it is not a
> material thing or process as such. Behaviourists would exclude it
> altogether. But this is what is motivating all the members of the design
> team when they sit down to collaborate with one another. Bone one of the
> team thinks the OBJECT is to drive the nail into the wood and another
> thinks the OBJECT is to sweep the Arbeitsgegenstand into the wastebin.
> These OBJECTs change in the course of collaboration and in the End an
> OBJECT Is *realised* which is the "truth" of the collaboration, to use
> Hegel's apt terminology here.
>
> Surely it is important to recognise that while everyone shares the same
> Arbeitsgegenstand, and ends up with Outcome as the same OBJECT, along the
> road they construe the object differently. This is what Vygotsky showed so
> clearly in Thinking and Speech. It is not the Arbeitsgegenstand or some
> problem carried within it alone which motivates action, but *the concept
> the subject makes of the Arbeitsgegenstand*!
>
> Then Leigh Star comes along and applies (as Lubomir astutely notices)
> postmodern ideology critique to the collaboration within an ostensibly
> neutral infrastructure - that is, in Engestrom's terms Rules and
> Instruments, which are naively supposed to be there just to aid
> collaboration. And Leigh Star shows that this is an illusion; the Rules and
> Instruments are in fact residues of past collaborations which carry within
> them the Outcomes, i.e., realised OBJECTs of past collaborations. It is
> these one-time OBJECTs, now-Instruments+Rules which are the Boundary
> Objects.
>
> But it seems that other have grasped the postmodern critique elements of
> this idea, that apparently ideologically neutral obJects (in the expanded
> sense of socially constructed entities, usually far more than OBJects - as
> things, or artefacts, including institutions - fossilised "systems of
> activity") and recognised the shared OBJECT as a Boundary Object,
> reflecting the fact not everyone has the same concept of the OBJECT, as
> Vygotsky proved.
>
> But what Engestrom has done, by placing the Boundary Object in the place
> of Object on his triangle, joining two "systems of activity," for the
> purpose of looking not at cooperation but rather the conflict within the
> broader collaboration. The reconstrual of the Arbeitsgegenstand is
> deliberate and aimed to change the relation between Subject and obJECT
> (here referring to the Hegelian "Object" usually rendered as "the Other.")
> thereby introducing yet a different strand of postmodern critique into the
> equation, namely Foucault's Poststructuralism, to mind mind, with great
> effect.
>
> OK, so we have Arbeitsgegenstand. OBJECT, Boundary Object, OBject, obJECT
> and obJect. And I might say, the situation is almost as bad in Russian and
> German,
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> On 22/07/2015 5:46 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot for your appreciation, Lubomir.
>>
>> To clarify my question in the previous e-mail, I wish to add that I am a
>> bit familiar with the distinction between object and tool in activity
>> theory, though not enough yet. I can see, and we were aware through the
>> process, that what we describe in the paper has to do with how the object
>> of design emerged and developed for the team in and as they were dealing
>> with, developing, and resorting to particular means or tools. But I guess
>> we could say that in our analyses there is a lack of a historical account
>> of the object that goes over and above the particular instances analyzed.
>> Although we provide with some ethnographic contextualization of the team's
>> developmental trajectories, all of our discussion is grounded on concrete
>> events and their transactional unfolding. We did not resort to the
>> distinction between object and means because it seemed to be the same thing
>> in the there and then of the episodes analyzed, at least in what
>> participants' orientations concerned. If they ori
>> ented towards anything beyond what was there in the meetings, it was in
>> and through the meetings' means. How would then the distinction between
>> means and object have added to our understanding of the events? (And this
>> is not to doubt of the contribution from such a distinction, I really mean
>> to ask this question for the purpose of growing and expanding; and as said
>> before, part of the answer may be found in Engestrom et al. contribution).
>>
>> As to how we would position our contribution with regard to activity
>> theory, I would reiterate what we said when introducing the paper for
>> discussion: we begun with the purpose of working outside any particular
>> framework and think, as we think Star did, broadly, drawing from several
>> sources. These included cultural historical psychology, ethnomethodology,
>> and discourse analysis. But also the ideas about Experience (in the
>> Deweyan/Vygotskyan sense) that have been the topic in this discussion were
>> in the background all the time, but we did not operationalize them in terms
>> of any particular theory. This is not to say that we went for the "anything
>> goes;" we tried our best to keep internal coherence between what we said
>> about the data, and what the data was exhibiting for us. Perhaps Rolf would
>> like to add to this.
>>
>> I think the questions you are rising about activity theory are very much
>> in the spirit of what I am after, and I am not the best to answer them; but
>> this xmca list may be one of the best places to be asking those questions.
>>
>> 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
>> Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu>
>> Sent: 21 July 2015 21:16
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Dear Alfredo and Rolf,
>>
>> There are also a few other things that I would like to bring to this
>> discussion.
>>
>> First, you have a wonderful project and a great article. It is a great
>> example of an interpretativist approach to everyday life phenomena. Really
>> interesting and fascinating. It is all about our minds, culture, and
>> activity.
>>
>> However, how is your approach related to classic Activity Theory? Some
>> people might find that it is a Symbolic Interactionist approach; others
>> might say it one of the Deconstructivist approaches that emerge right now
>> or have emerged in the last decades; still other people might look for
>> connections to ethnomethodology, discourse analysis, etc. I am not trying
>> here to impose a template or categorize your methodology -- just raising a
>> question about its connection to Activity Theory. And again, I am not
>> saying that this is a shortcoming -- I would like to clarify certain things
>> for myself.
>>
>> For example: What are the limits and boundaries of Activity Theory? How
>> much we can fuse Activity Theory and Postmodernist approaches? What do we
>> gain when we infuse new methodological, epistemological, and ontological
>> realities into Activity Theory? What do we lose? What is the threshold when
>> it is not Activity Theory anymore? (I mean here Activity Theory as research
>> methodology.) Do we need to call something Activity Theory if it is not? If
>> we create a new approach starting with Activity Theory, do we need to call
>> it Activity Theory?
>>
>> Activity Theory is a product of Modern thinking, Late Modernism. The
>> discourse you use in your paper borrows strongly from Postmodern discourses
>> and approaches. I am not sure that Modernist and Postmodernist discourses
>> can be fused. We can borrow ideas across the range of discourses, but after
>> we assimilate them for use in our project, they will "change hands" and
>> will change their particular discourse affiliation and will become
>> completely different components of a completely different discourse. Mostly
>> because the epistemologies and ontologies are different; and the concepts
>> are very different despite of the similarities in ideas and words used to
>> name these ideas.
>>
>> Just a few questions that I hope will help me understand better what is
>> going on in the realm of CHAT.
>>
>> Thank you very much for this exciting discussion,
>>
>> 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 Alfredo
>> Jornet Gil
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:36 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Andy, all,
>> I just recently begun to read Engeström and cols. contribution to the
>> special issue, which is very interesting. I have particular interest in the
>> difference that they point out between boundary object on the one hand, and
>> object and instrumentality as different aspects of activity theory on the
>> other. Rolf and I came across this distinction while writing our own paper.
>> We noticed that the museum space, through multiple forms of presentations
>> (e.g., the room itself, a floor plan, performances of being in the room
>> while not being there, etc), was a means, an instrument for achieving a
>> final design product.
>>
>> At the same time, the museum space begun to become the object of the
>> designers' activity. Since this were interdisciplinary designs, and the
>> partners had multiple, sometimes opposite interests, what seemed to be a
>> common object for all them was the museum as place. Thus, most
>> representations of it begun to be made in terms of narratives about being
>> there. That was the orientation that seemed to stick them together.
>>
>> Thus, the museum space was both object and instrument. We wondered
>> whether we should do connections to notions of object of activity and
>> tools, but we felt that that road would take us away from the focus on body
>> and experience. We ended up drawing from Binder et al (2011), who
>> differentiate between object of design, the design thing that work
>> delivers, and the object's constituents (or means of presentation before
>> the design thing is finished).
>>
>> When bringing the notion of boundary object into the picture, we could
>> discuss the history of development of these relations between the different
>> forms of presentations of the museum means towards the object without
>> necessarily articulating the differences between the two. One advantage was
>> that boundary objects focus on the materiality, which, as already
>> mentioned, is not about materials in themselves, but about consequences in
>> action. From the point of view of the persons implicated in the process,
>> the museum space as object of design was an issue in and through the
>> working with some material, some form of presenting it or changing it. Both
>> object and instrument seemed to be moments of a same experience. But I
>> still want to learn what we may get out of making the distinction between
>> object and tool, as Engeström and colleagues do (so I should perhaps read
>> more carefully their study rather than be here thinking aloud).
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> 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
>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> Sent: 21 July 2015 14:38
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Henry, anything. But the point is objects which play some
>> role in mediating the relation between subjects, probably a
>> symbolic role, but possibly an instrumental role, too, and
>> one subject challenges that role and turns the object into
>> its opposite, and changes the terms of collaboration.
>> A number of examples spring to mind.
>>
>> * Loaded, especially pejorative words, such as Queer, are
>> embraced by a despised group who take control of the
>> word and assertively embrace it;
>> * The post-WW2 women's peace movement who deployed their
>> stereotype as housewives and mothers to magnificant effect;
>> * ISIS's hatred and fear of women turned into a weapon
>> against them by Kurdish women fighters (ISIS flee before
>> them rather than in shame);
>> * The Chartists who turned the British govt's stamp which
>> put newspapers out of reach of workers against them by
>> printing the Northern Star as a stamped newspaper and
>> obliging workers to club together in groups to buy and
>> read it, thus making the paper into a glorious
>> organising tool;
>> * the naming of Palestine and the Occupied Territory /
>> Israel is the struggle over the meaning of a shared
>> object (the land);
>> * Gandhi's use of the landloom as both a weapon and tool
>> for Indian independence and self-sufficiency, raising it
>> from the status of obsolete and inferior technology to a
>> symbol of India.
>>
>> In think this is not what Susan Leigh Star had in mind when
>> she introduced the term, but core point is that the
>> ideological construction placed upon an object is subject to
>> contestation, and if successful, the re-marking of an
>> artefact is a tremendously powerful spur to subjectivity.
>>
>> Yrjo raises the question: is the"boundary object" a
>> mediating artefact or the object of work
>> (/Arbeitsgegenstand/)? I think the answer is that in these
>> cases it is a mediating artefact, tool or symbols according
>> to context. In principle it is not the Object in the
>> Engestromian sense, though it might happen to be.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> On 21/07/2015 12:27 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>>
>>> Rolf, Alfredo, Andy,
>>> I got to thinking about the photographs as boundary objects. What about
>>> video?
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, thinking about this overnight, I came to see that it was the
>>>> photographs that Thomas was endeavouring to turn to use to recover his
>>>> humanity. This is consonant with how Yrjo was using the idea in relation to
>>>> the subsistence farmers' movement in Mexico and their corn.
>>>> Thanks Rolf!
>>>> Andy
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>> On 21/07/2015 3:04 AM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This makes sense to me, Andy. I could also interpret the photographs
>>>>> as boundary objects as they support the coordination of therapy activities
>>>>> between Thomas and the nurse. I think it depends on the aspect of activity
>>>>> one is attempting to explore as opposed to the definite identification of
>>>>> what may or may not be a boundary object. This is only my opinion though!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Or alternatively, the boundary object in question is
>>>>> Thomas's aged body, which is subject to an
>>>>> interpretation which Thomas contests by showing
>>>>> photographs of far away places and explaining how
>>>>> well-travelled he is, seeking an interpretation of
>>>>> himself as a well-travelled and experiences
>>>>> man-of-the-world.
>>>>> Does that make better sense?
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> On 20/07/2015 11:27 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>> <mailto: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/>
>>>>> <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>>
>>>>> <mailto: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/>
>>>>> <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>>
>>>>> <mailto: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>>
>>>>> <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>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>>
>>>>> <mailto: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>>
>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>> 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>>
>>>>> <mailto: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>>
>>>>> <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>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>>
>>>>> <mailto: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>>
>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>> 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>>
>>>>> <mailto: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>>
>>>>> <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>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list