[Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
Peter Smagorinsky
smago@uga.edu
Wed Jul 22 09:49:21 PDT 2015
In case anyone's interested, I've got a set of articles that draw on LSV's volume on Defectology to consider current conceptions of mental health. They should be evident by title at http://smago.coe.uga.edu/vita/vitaweb.htm although it might take some sifting. p
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 12:32 PM
To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
Andy,
Speaking of typos, I am assuming you meant DSM - The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), not DVM - which is the Dept of Motor Vehicles, here in New Mexico. Not that there hasn’t been a lot of traffic on this thread lately. Your substantive point about what is considered mental illness, and how the DSM defines it, seems super relevant to this thread, where subject/object issues touch on individual and collective sanity and insanity, however sanity and insanity are construed.
Henry
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> You are right, Larry, that everything that's going on in these situation arises from the *relation between a subject and the Arbeitsgegenstand*, not the Arbeitsgegenstand alone.
> For example, there are hundreds of "syndromes" listed in DMV which in past times or other countries are not considered illnesses at all.
> And apologies for all the silly typos in that message.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> On 23/07/2015 1:11 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
>> 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 <mailto: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/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>> 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
>> <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 Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu
>> <mailto: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:bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Blspopov>=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto: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
>> <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 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>> <mailto: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/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>> 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>
>> <mailto: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/>
>> <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/>
>> <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>>
>> <mailto: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/>
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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/>
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>>
>> <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
>> <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>>
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list