Eva, it was the other graphs, but then I found Bill's comments very
helpful. A reflective question for me of why I see/saw quantitative
patterns (graphs) less context dependent. I guess the important question
being not graphs/words or quantitative/qualitative, but as you mentioned
earlier what we make out of those patterns. Do we assume the patterns that
emerge are natural occurring aspects of an activity systems development
(x-lists) or as you mentioned,
"Still, it is a little too easy to be consoled here, by the persistence of
the pattern, the way it emerges in the system without any centralized
intent, the ways it can be construed as a natural effect of the logistics
of electronic conversation, no exclusion intended. It CAN be looked at that
way, but I still wonder what it would take to break the pattern."
For me, the graphs reinforced the "natural effect of the logistics of
electronic conversation" but as Bill reminded me "Graphs offer insights
that can be difficult to put so succinctly into words". This, of course, is
related to concerns of "But, I don't believe in development" that Mary
mentioned. So, I go back to your comments above and the challenges it puts
forth to seeing the patterns that emerge as a "natural effect of the
logistics of electronic conversation".
Nate
Nate,
When you wrote:
>cascading activity systems was along the lines of Barry Kort's model. But
>that has been addressed in an earlier message, my larger point was a
>concern of "development of activity systems" in the context of
>(quanatative) the graphs. It just may be the universalistic implications
>graphs and models have on me and a concern of those patterns becoming
>naturalized as normal or universal. Don't get me wrong, I found the
graphs
>very informative, yet at the same time, I was aware that they made it all
>seem more legitimate ("scientific", "universal") than just words. A
It doesn't concern me so much. Yes, to my mind, trained as a physicist,
the graphs showing patterns feel scientific to me, because those were the
tools I used often as a scientist. They are certainly *do not* feel more
scientific than words, however, because I used those even more as a
scientist. What I am concerned about is the flip side to the sentiment
that graphs are more scientific. As the pendulum swings away from
pseudo-scientific practices, and determinism, and positivism -- I hope
that people on the list won't reject or devalue patterns simply on the
basis of their being quantitative. Graphs offer insights that can be
difficult to put so succinctly into words. On the other hand more people
are skilled in decoding words than they are graphs. Careful work with
quantitative patterns and models often indicates that these are just as
context dependent as words are.
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]