On the e-mail, I do not have the more persuasive means
than my previous mails.
First, I would like to ask you to read my papers of LCHC
newsletter and Cognition and Instruction.
Fortunately, you have my paper of LCHC newsletter.
And give me your comments.
Unfortunately, in my papers, there is no interaction analysis.
So, second, I wish we could discuss with watching VCR tape
of diagnosis and instruction sessions.
What I said is not just research slogan, theoretical perspective,
but ways of interaction analysis.
By demonstration of interaction analysis, I can show
the meaning of how langauge game, or coweaving contexts is
collaboratively organized, how observation of phenomenon are
colloboratively, mediationally orgainzed, very concretely.
It will open the new horizon of discussion as well.
For that, this link has limitation so far.
Third, communication with technoscience research communities
or social studies of science research communities will be
important and useful mutually.
By discussion with you, I remembered my first visit to Palo
Alto and Stanford, that was around 1990. Fortunately, Mike was
there and he introduced many persons to me there. It was so
helpful for me to open the new network. Thanks a lot, Mike.
At that time, Mike introduced Case to me as well. I wonderd why
I had to meet Case. Because I was not interested in any kind of
Piagetian.
After that, there, I found out Greeno, Case and Ray McDermott
were friends and they had the small informal meeting regulary.
For me, that also seemed to be very strange combination.
Now, I can undertsand the reason of this strange looking
combination and why I had to meet Case.
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo