Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Physical artefacts, indices and experience in communication

762 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Physical artefacts, indices and experience in communication

  1. 1. Physical artefacts, indices and experience in communication Pramatism and Communication Helsinki 3-5.5.2014 PhD Merja Bauters
  2. 2. Table of contents • Motivation of the topic • Informal learning research in workplaces • Meaning making = Learning & sharing • Peirce’s communicative perspective • Indices, common ground, physical artefacts • Where to go next – experiences
  3. 3. Motivation of the topic Workplace learning is informal learning that takes place without explicit teaching (Tynjälä 2013). It is continuous process of improving employee competence and performance through training, socialization, and development within an organizational context (Ford, Kozlowski, Kraiger, Salas, & Teachout 1997).
  4. 4. Informal learning research in workplaces The results of a research on e-learning in the workplace 2000–2012: A bibliometric analysis of the literature by Cheng et all (2014) provides a beautiful overview on the studies on workplace learning. Identified 4 dimensions in the field: • e-learning for continuing education and professional development • e-learning in the healthcare sector • use of social media for e-learning • the integration of knowledge management with e-learning. 6/6/2014 Media Lab 4
  5. 5. Informal learning research in workplaces • Most based in cognitive science learning; on-demand learning; and flexibility in time and place (Salas et al., 2002; Welsh et al. 2003). • Related to professional knowledge and skills, knowledge exchange, and workplace knowledge. • Social media for informal learning in the focus • Main aim: knowledge management, knowledge sharing, knowledge workers, knowledge exchange, and knowledge creation are central topics in job-oriented professional development 6/6/2014 Laitoksen nimi 5
  6. 6. Informal learning research in workplaces • Less in focus but highly important: • Technology enhanced social interaction to support knowledge exchange or sharing among peers. • Various training or learning programs and technologies to support the capture and transfer of tacit knowledge embedded in practice experience. In line with the claim of Welsh, Wanberg, Brown, and Simmering’s (2003): the integration of personnel training with on-demand job support and professional development might become a future direction of workplace e-learning 6/6/2014 Laitoksen nimi 6
  7. 7. Informal learning research in workplaces Another important aspect: • Web 2.0 technologies provide affordances to informal learning by supporting knowledge exchange based on informal social relations, • Needs to take into account: • the development of trust and reputation, and knowledge transfer through mentoring (García-Peñalvo, Colomo-Palacios, & Lytas 2012; Liu, Macintyre, & Ferguson, 2012; Seufert 2012). 6.6.2014 Laitoksen nimi 7
  8. 8. Informal learning research in workplaces • Where to focus now: • Learning in workplace contexts requires employees to capture intuition or tacit knowledge, contribute to the creation of new knowledge, and manage knowledge assets for continuous improvement. • Future focus: • Learning in the organizational context should go beyond the individual level, and an organization should be able to learn and adapt to the environment (Wang & Yang 2009). Cheng et all (2014) stated: many studies are limited to the superficial use and analysis of the tools without taking into account the organizational contexts that may affect the essential attributes of social and collaborative behaviour, such as trust, voluntariness, and self-directness – where do these emerge?. 6.6.2014 Laitoksen nimi 8
  9. 9. Meaning making = Learning & sharing • Support learning as part of the work. • Provide tools to allow near automatic sharing/collaboration • Feelings that may push towards learning moment: • Wish to ask help • Feeling uncertain • Being in doubt – halt in the work • Feeling that all went perfectly • Wanting to remember
  10. 10. Meaning making & change … • The context, feelings of “uncertainty/disturbance” are needed for some kind of change to occur • The halted moment, should support moment to become conscious of our awareness • Awareness will be directed • Heightened/intensified perceiving of environment (context) • Support for reasoning – finding “help” using social networks • Potential for change is in the process
  11. 11. Peirce’s communicative perspective
  12. 12. Communicative perspective • The fundamental meaning of fully developed sign is its effect on our Habits (ultimate logical Interpetant) • The determination of the object to the Interpretant is important in a sense that it creates the borders in which the interpretation occurs. It also points to the need of collateral experience to enable to even take the sign as a sign. • In this way, there is a connection to the “real” the concrete world. 6.6.2014 12
  13. 13. Communicative perspective • The emotional part is important since according to the recent neuroscientific research reasoning, thinking and learning are based on emotions - feeling of emotions – Peirce: “Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain” • Thought, sense, thinking resides in the environment, in the tools we use etc., thought is a semiosis (see above individual Interpretants) 6.6.2014 13
  14. 14. Embodiment – towards experience • “I believe it comes decidedly nearer the truth (though not really true) that language resides in the tongue. In my opinion it is much more true that the thoughts of a living writer are in any printed copy of his book than that they are in his brain.” (Peirce CP 7.364). • Albert Einstein, pointed out ”my pen is smarter than I am” (Skagestad, 1999, p. 552) • Signs do not constitute a separate conceptual realm, but are connected, from the start, to the (material) world. • Conceptions are not only in dialogue with fellow inquirers (+ shared interpretations) or with the object of inquiry but always in relation to both of these poles. 6.6.2014 14
  15. 15. Communicative perspective • Interpretation does not only involve symbolic processes (Thirdness) but also fuzzy and vague feeling of emotions (Firstness) and resistance encountered in practical experimentation (Secondness) that may, in turn, bring new conceptualisations about • Objects cannot be developed freely but have properties or affordances that support certain uses and purposes • Interpretation involves both: dialogue with nature and dialogue with collective (shared, collaborative interpretations guiding and constraining Interpretations) 6.6.2014 15
  16. 16. Peirce’s communicative perspective (Bergman 1999: 46 and 2004: 386 adapted) 6.6.2014 16 Phaneroscopic categories Perspective of inquiry Firstness Secondness Thirdness Structural-Normative Immediate Dynamical Final Individual Emotional Energetic Logical Communicative Intentional Effectual Communicational Emotional meaning Existential meaning Logical meaning Societal semiosis - habit forming Forming of the semiotic self Collateral experiences
  17. 17. Communicative perspective • “There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the utterer, The Effectual Interpretant, which is a determination of the mind of the interpreter; and the Communicational Interpretant, or say the Cominterpretant, which is a determination of that mind into which the mind of utterer and interpreter have to to be fused in order that any communication should take place. This mind may be called the commens. It consists of all that is, and must be, well understood between utterer and interpreter at the outset, in order that the sign in question should fulfill its function. (SS 196-197 [1906] in Bergman 2004) 6.6.2014 17
  18. 18. Habits – changing habits = (informal) learning • Pragmatism gave habit a new meaning • Habit is not only mindless routines, rather, it is a process that is open for reflection and control( Kilpinen 2008:3 and 2009: 102, Bergman 2009: 10) • “ […] that multiple reiterated behavior of the same kind, under similar combinations of percepts and fancies, produces a tendency, - the habit, - actually to behave in a similar way under similar circumstances in the future” (EP 2:413, “Pragmatism” 1907) • “Intelligent habit upon which we shall act when occasion presents itself” (EP 2:19 [1895]), might NOT be in the focus of our awareness but can be easily brought up into reflection to distinguish them from tacit knowledge 6/6/2014 18
  19. 19. Habits – changing habits = (informal) learning • Only self-controlled habits can be ultimate logical Interpretants. • Requires agency and effort • When in doubt, seeing the environment with more “clarity” 6/6/2014 19
  20. 20. Indices, common ground, physical artefacts
  21. 21. Sharing meaning…? Common ground • “The universe must be well known and mutually known to be known and agreed to exist, in some sense, between speaker and hearer, between the mind as appealing to its own further consideration and the mind as so appealed to, or there can be no communication, or 'common ground,' at all.” (Peirce 1931-1958, 3.621; see also ibid., 6.338; 8.179) In Bergman 2002: 10) 6/6/2014 21
  22. 22. Common ground (Collateral experience) • Common ground is needed to make communication, or sign-processes (semiosis) understandable (see Clark & Brennan 1991; Peirce 1931-1958, 3.621) • Collateral experience "serves a kind of double function, on the one hand showing us some limits of the semiotic domain, while on the other reminding us of the relevance of situational and contextual factors. In fact, the crucial recognition of reality is achieved through indexical and experiential means. According to Peirce, we cannot distinguish fact from fiction by any description” See also Bergman 2002 (CP 2.337 [c. 1895]). Bergman 2002: 9). • Sharing experiences requires indices, signs which indicate ,call, pinpoint, direct the attention to their objects through which experiences could be shared 6/6/2014 22
  23. 23. Common ground (Collateral experience) • To have the collateral experience is the prerequisite for getting any idea signified by the sign. (CP 8.179; cf. CP 8.181.). “[…] Collateral experience is not of the character of a representation, but of another mode of being (Secondness). Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind how threadbare this experience is as such. It is only when it is interpreted and brought within the domain of signs that it can play a truly meaningful role”( Bergman 2002: 10). • However “Mere signs will be inefficient, it the required experience background or proficiency is missing” (Bergman 2004: 418). 6/6/2014 23
  24. 24. Indices, Artefacts & meaning 6/6/2014 24 • The meaning is NOT just symbolic but an indexical relationship to artefacts and experiences … • “The subject must be something which speaker and listener both know by experience; or else, the assertion must show the hearer by what process he can gain experience” (MS 805:19-20 In Bergman 2004: 420) • Indices play an important role in creating and maintaining and developing common ground and contextualising the communication • They indicate where to place attention (designations/subindicies), point to physical objects/artefacts (reagents) and connect to familiar experiences
  25. 25. Material artefacts, Indices, & meaning 6/6/2014 25 • A suggestion: To get the dynamics of processes, the interplay between dynamical, immediate and “final” object (i.e. object which is the outcome) should be taken into account • The immediate object: The immediate object is the object as it is represented in the sign. It is the meaningful referential content of the sign. • dynamical (or real) object: The Dynamic object can be characterised by three traits: (1) it is determinative, (2) it is unexpressed in the sign itself, and (3) it must be known by so-called collateral experience. It’s the tie to material part of artefacts. It’s the one to which we try to refer to, to point attention to when we try to find out our collateral experience, our shared background in a particular actual situation. • The dynamic object limits the field of signification or semiosis. It provides the borders/scope in which the interpretation can occur. Therefore, we cannot interpret whatever, from sign, these are always tied to the material “context”. (Joswick 1996, p. 98; Liszka 1996, p. 23, Bauters 2007).
  26. 26. Common ground grows “I have defined an index or indication as a sign by virtue of physical connection. Experiental connection would be more explicit; for I mean by physical connection that the signs occurs in our experience in relation to when and where of the object it represents. The phrase “our experience” is significant. Experience is the course of life, so far as we attend to it. “Our experience”, I say, because unless tow persons had some experience in common, they could not communicate, at all. If their experience were identical, they could not furnish one another no information. But to the experience both have in common, the several experiences of the two connect other occurrences: and so we have shares in collective experience. An index connects a new experience with the former experiences. (MS 797:10 in Bergman 2004:427). 6/6/2014 26
  27. 27. 6/6/2014 27
  28. 28. 6/6/2014 28
  29. 29. Where to go next – experiences
  30. 30. Peirce’s communicative perspective (Bergman 1999: 46 and 2004: 386 adapted) 6.6.2014 30 Phaneroscopic categories Perspective of inquiry Firstness Secondness Thirdness Structural-Normative Immediate Dynamical Final Individual Emotional Energetic Logical Communicative Intentional Effectual Communicational Emotional meaning Existential meaning Logical meaning Societal semiosis - habit forming Forming of the semiotic self Collateral experiences
  31. 31. Experience - time • The experience stretches, it is not static nor stable, its the relations between all things in the environment and social environment/culture. These are scoped by the past experiences and directed by the anticipated future, so that existing habits, tools, institutions etc. have an affect on the current situation where the experience occurs "qualitative immediacy”. (Alhanen 2013) • The qualitative immediacy is close to Peirce "brute force". The past and anticipated future makes a difference in attention – where the focus will be and how the experience forms the meaning. The felt experiences are not impressions, they are real even though these would be hallucinations - they are felt as real. (MW 9 [DE):16-21. MW 12 [RP]: 133. LW 12 [LTI]:52). 6.6.2014 31
  32. 32. Experience - time • The experience is not something that happens inside the subject, its not something where the subject forms a representations of the things in the environment. Rather it is a continuous interaction with environment, where the "inside and outside" are not really separate but forma unified whole. (LW 12 [LTI]: 73-74). • "It is that reconstruction or reorganisation of experience which adds to the meaning of experience, and which increases ability to direct the course of subsequent experience.” (MW 9 [DE]: 83). 6.6.2014 32
  33. 33. Experience - time "Habits are conditions of intellectual efficiency. They operate in two ways upon intellect. Obviously, they restrict its reach, they fix its boundaries. They are blinders that confine the eyes of mind to the road ahead. They prevent thought from straying away from its imminent occupation to a landscape more varied and picturesque but irrelevant to practice. [...] Habit is however more than restriction of thought. Habit become negative limits because they are first positive agencies. The more numerous our habits the wider field of possible observations and foretelling. The more flexible they are, the more refined is perception in it's discrimination and the more delicate the presentation evoked by imagination. " (MW 14 [HNC]: 122). 6.6.2014 33
  34. 34. Experience - time • “A general idea, living and conscious now, it is already determinative of acts in the future to an extent which is not now conscious.” (EP 1.331 [1892]). • “The Interpretant does not need to exist; a “being in futuro will suffice” (EP 2.92 [1902]).” Bergman 2002: 4). • Experiences (their meaning / remembering) changes because of anticipated future • Prager: the present and anticipated future may transfer the perceived past “feeling states and bodily desires, inherited from the past but prevailing in the present, can rewrite the past in the service of the present” (Prager 1998: 83) • Reflected in Dewey's experience, building of continues experiences for learning 6.6.2014 34
  35. 35. Thank you! Merja Bauters Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Helsinki – Finland firstname.surname@aalto.fi The Learning Layers project is supported by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreement #318209, under the DG Information society and Media (E3), unit of Cultural heritage and technology-enhanced learning. http://learning- layers.eu
  36. 36. References Alhanen K (2013). John Deweyn kokemusfilosofia. Gaudeamus Bauters M. (2007). Changes in beer labels and their meaning: a holistic approach to semiosic process, Helsinki: Semiotic Society of Finland. Bergman, Mats. (1999). Meaning and Mediation: Critical Reflections on Peirce and Communication Theory. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Bergman, Mats. (2004) Fields of Signification, Explorations in Charles S. Peirce's Theory of Signs. Vantaa: Dark Oy. Bergman Mats (2002). C. S. Peirce on Interpretation and Collateral Experience. Forskarseminarium i filosofi 7.10.2002 Filosofiska institutionen Åbo Akademi Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: APA Books. LW Dewey John, The Later Works, 17 vols. (1981-1991). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. MW Dewey John, The Middle Works, 15 vols. (1976-1988). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Ford, J. K., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Kraiger, K., Salas, E., & Teachout, M. S. (1997). Improving training effectiveness in work organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. García-Peñalvo, F. J., Colomo-Palacios, R., & Lytas, M. D. (2012). Informal learning in work environments: Training with the social web in the workplace. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(8), 753–755 . 6/6/2014 36
  37. 37. References Joswick, H. (1996). The Object of Semeiotic. In Colapietro, V. M. & Olshewsky, T. M. (Eds.). Peirce’s Doctrine of Signs: Theory, Applications, and Connections (pp. 93-102). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kilpinen, Erkki (2002). “A Neglected Classic Vindicated: The Place of George Herbert Mead in the General Tradition of Semiotics”. Semiotica 142 (4): 1–30. Liszka, J. J. (1996). A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Liu, H., Macintyre, R., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Exploring qualitative analytics for e-mentoring relationships building in an online social learning environment. Proceedings of the second international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 179–183). Vancouver, Canada. EP1-2: The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings. Vol. 1 (1867-1893), edited by Nathan Houser & Christian Kloesel, 1992, vol. 2 (1893-1913), edited by the Peirce Edition Project, 1998. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press CP1-8: Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 8 volumes, vols. 1-6, eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, vols. 7-8, ed. Arthur W. Burks. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931-1958. W1-: The Writings of Charles S. Peirce. 6 vols. to date. Vol. 1, edited by Max Fisch et at., vol. 2, edited by Edward C. Moore et al., vols. 3-5, edited by Christian Kloesel et al., vol. 6, edited by the Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980-2000. 6/6/2014 37
  38. 38. References More sources: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/sfcollections.html Prager, Jeffrey (1998). Presenting the Past: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Misremembering. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Salas, E., Kosarzycki, M. P., Burke, C. S., Fiore, S. M., & Stone, D. L. (2002). Emerging themes in distance learning research and practice: Some food for thought. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, 135–153. Seufert, S. (2012). Trust and reputation in eLearning at the workplace: The role of social media. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 604– 607). Los Alamitos: IEEE. Skagestad, P. 1999. Peirce‘s inkstand as an external embodiment of mind. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 35(3), 551-561. Tynjälä, P. (2013). Towards a 3P-model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11–36. Wang, M., & Yang, S. J. H. (2009). Editorial: Knowledge management and e-learning. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 1(1), 1–5. Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, E. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003). E-learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7, 245–258. 6/6/2014 38

×