Working on my CV. I didn’t realize how busy I had been over the last few years!

Publications, Presentations and Workshops

Book chapters

Koole, M., & Parchoma, G. (2012). Networked Learning and the Web of Identity. In S. Warburton & S. Hatzipanagos (Eds.), Digital identity and social media. London: Information Science Reference, an imprint of IGI Global. [Coming out in July]

Koole, M. (2009). Chapter 2: A Model for Framing Mobile Learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training (pp. 25-47). Edmonton, Alberta: AU Press.

Stauffer, K., Lin, F., & Koole, M. (2010). Chapter 19: A Methodology for Developing Learning Objects for Web Course Delivery. In M. R. Syed (Ed.), Technologies Shaping Instruction and Distance Education: New Studies and Utilizations (pp. 280-289). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-934-2.ch019

Papers in Refereed Journals

Koole, M., & Parchoma, G. (2012). The Ethical and Practical Implications of Systems Architecture on Identity in Networked Learning: A Constructionist Perspective. Interactive Learning Environments. [Coming out in May]

Fahy, P., Spencer, R., & Koole, M. (Awaiting review). The self-reported impact of graduate program completion on the careers and plans of master’s graduate: Second report in a series.

Koole, M., Letkemen McQuilkin, J., & Ally, M. (2010). Mobile Learning in Distance Education: Utility or Futility. Journal of Distance Education. URL: http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/644/1107

Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M, & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001

Presentations

Identity

Koole, M. (2012). Ontological and epistemological threshold crossings of doctoral students in networked learning environments: “My ontolo- . . . what?” The 4th Biennial Threshold Concepts Conference and 6th NAIRTL Annual Conference (June 27-29). Dublin, Ireland.

Koole, M. (2012). A Social Constructionist Approach to Phenomenographic Analysis of Identity Positioning in Networked Learning. The 8th International Conference on Networked Learning (April 2-4). Maastrict, Netherlands.

Koole, M., & Parchoma, G. (2011). The Web of Identity: Identity Formation in Online Learning. CIDER Sessions (online presentation). The Canadian Institute of Distance Education Research. URL: http://cider.athabascau.ca/CIDERSessions/Koole2/sessiondetails

Koole, M. (2010). The web of identity: Selfhood and belonging in online learning networks. The 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (May 3-4). Aalbourg, Denmark. URL: http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/

Mobile Learning

Koole, M., de Waard, I., & Elsayed Meawad, F. (2010). Mobile Learning: Solutions & Challenges. CIDER Sessions (online presentation). The Canadian Institute of Distance Education Research. URL: http://cider.athabascau.ca/CIDERSessions/mkoole/sessiondetails

Koole, M. (2010). Mobile learning: Do the benefits justify the cost and time? New Era Teaching and Learning (online presentation). Commonwealth of Learning. URL: http://www.bcedtech.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=259

Ally, M., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, Marguerite, Kenny, R. F., & Park, C. (2009). Developing a Community of Inquiry in a Mobile Learning Context. Learning and Technology: A Capital Idea! (Canadian Network for Innovation in Education Annual Conference, Ottawa, Ontario) URL: http://www.cnie-rcie.ca/?q=node/115

Koole, M. (2009). Workshop: Go Mobile! Advantages, Issues, and Examples of Mobile Technologies in Distance Education. 8th Annual International MADLaT Conference (Winnipeg, Manitoba). URL: http://www.madlat.ca/conference2009

Koole, M., & Ally, M. (2008). UMLAUT-M Understanding Mobile Learning at a University Through MobiGlam: Utility or Futility? MLearn: The bridge from text to context (October 6-10). Telford, UK.

Koole, M., Ally, M., Elsayed Meawad, F., & Letkeman McQuilkin, J. (2008). UMLAUT-M: Understanding Mobile Learning at Athabasca University through MobiGlam. Canadian Network for Innovation in Education Annual Conference (April 27-30). Banff, AB.

Koole, M., & Ally, M. (2006). Framework for the Rational Analysis of Mobile Education (FRAME) Model: Revising the ABCs of Educational Practices. International Conference on Networking, International Conference on Systems and International Conference on Mobile Communications and Learning Technologies (ICN ICONS MCL’06) (pp. 216-216). Mauritius: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICNICONSMCL.2006.103

Koole, M. (2006). Practical Issues in Mobile Education. Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education (WMTE’06) (pp. 142-146). Athens: IEEE. doi:10.1109/WMTE.2006.261363

Koole, M., & Ally, M. (2006). Framework for the Rational Analysis of Mobile Education (FRAME) Model: Revising the ABCs of Educational Practices. The 1st International Conference on Interactive Computer Aided Learning (IMCL), April 19-22. Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Amman, Jordan.

Ally, M., & Koole, M. (2006). Workshop: Best practices for instructors and trainers who use mobile devices to deliver instruction to students. The 1st International Conference on Interactive Computer Aided Learning (IMCL), April 19-22. Amman, Jordan.

Koole, M. (2006). Mobile Devices in Distance Education: Compare, Consider and Collaborate. 5th World Conference on Mobile Learning (October 20-26). Banff, AB.

Koole, M., & McGreal, R. (2006). mLearning: What is it and where is it going? Innovations in Education: Challenges, Issues, and Solutions. (CADE/AMTEC Annual Conference) May 23-26. Montreal, QU.

E-Portfolios

Moisey, S., Hoven, D., Kenny, R., & Koole, Marguerite. (2009). E-portfolios – A Viable capstone activity for graduate programs. Learning and Technology: A Capital Idea! (Canadian Network for Innovation in Education Annual Conference, Ottawa, Ontario) URL: http://www.cnie-rcie.ca/?q=node/115

Hoven, D., & Koole, M. (2008). Integration of an e-Portfolio into a Master of Education program. Invited presentation for the Teaching and Learning Effectiveness Program. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Koole, M. (2007). Reflecting, scaffolding and showcasing: Integrating an e-portfolio tool into a master’s program. ADETA: Distributed Learning in the 21st Century (October). Edmonton, AB

Technology & Learner Support

Spencer, R., & Koole, M. (2008). Value and uses of open source products in support of graduate student learning. MADLaT: E-Learning Comes Together (May 8-9). Winnipeg, MN.

Spencer, R., & Koole, M. (2008). Workshop: Moodle – An open source LMS. MADLaT: E-Learning Comes Together (May 8-9). Winnipeg, MN.

Wagenaar, C., & Koole, M. (2007). Podcasting in a blended learning environment: Alberta Children’s Services. ADETA: Distributed Learning in the 21st Century (October). Edmonton, AB.

Spencer, R., Moisey, S., & Koole, M. (2007). Moodle and the Master of Distance Education Program. Moodle Moot. Edmonton, AB.

Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M. & Kinsel, E. (2006, May).  Teaching presence in online communities of inquiry: Learners, facilitators and learning.  Paper presented at CADE/AMTEC Annual Conference Conference, Montreal, P.Q.

Cleveland-Innes, M., & Koole, M. (2005). Learner Support in Online Learning. Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (August 3-5). Madison, WI.

Cleveland-Innes, M., & Koole, M. (2005). Workshop: Student Support Technology. Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (August 3-5). Madison, WI.

Cleveland-Innes, M. & Koole, M. (2004).  Role adjustment for students in online environments.  Invited keynote address, Learner Services Forum 2004, Campus Saskatchewan.  Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Fun Projects

• Understanding Mobile Learning at Athabasca University through MobiGlam (Primary Researcher)
• Anthropology 275 Common Objects Quiz (Programmer, Flash developer; images by Margaret Anderson)
• PHP & Flash Quiz & Hangman tool (Programmer, Flash developer)
• Convocation 2002 Photo Album (Designer, programmer)
• Athabasca University Tour (Co-project manager)
• SCIS Orientation Module (Project manager, script writer) (deprecated)

No Comments on Working on my CV. I didn’t realize how busy I had been over the last few years!

Using an E-Reader to Manage Your PhD Reading

I recently went on vacation. The thought of leaving my library behind was creating stress. I knew that I needed to take a break, but the compulsion to make sure I had some reading just in case the mood would strike was compelling. So, I decided to purchase an e-reader and load my entire electronic library. It took me one, full day to complete this task.

I wanted an e-reader that would allow me to

• read journal articles and e-books from libraries, purchased, etc.
• read easily outside (it was for a tropical vacation)
• highlight segments
• write notes easily
• export and print highlights and notes
• download different kinds of readings from the Internet ranging from the purely academic to newspapers, magazines, and trashy novels

Enlisting the help of my e-reader-owning friends and my husband, I searched the Internet for the “perfect” e-reader. Then, I went to local shops and tried them out. I was seduced by the very small, 5-inch Sony Reader. But, I found that the screen was just a touch too small for the kind of interaction that I wanted to have with the device. It felt like I was moving towards the tiny real estate of a smart phone. I tried the Kobo, the Alurateck Libre, and some others. One last effort took me to a nearby Sony Store. They only had one kind of reader in stock, but, it seemed to match my needs. This model (PRS-T1) had just arrived in the store two weeks prior to my arrival. And, it had wifi which was not on my list, but could be a nice addition.

Now, I have found that I do, indeed, like the e-Reader. And, here are my reasons:

• I can carry my entire electronic library in my purse
• I can read it incredibly well in bright sunlight.
• I love the carry-case with the flexible light
• I can highlight text with the stylus
• I can make hand-written notes or peck-a-letter notes
• I can export all my highlights and notes AND print them
• I can create “searchable” PDF documents or sections of books on university photocopiers and upload them to the e-Reader. These PDFs are somewhat like OCR documents allowing highlighting and searching.
• I can purchase e-books as well as some newspapers and magazines through the desktop interface very easily.
• I can quickly and easily download a variety of open access books directly on the device using the wifi (quick and easy).
• I can surf the web using the device. The browser, although limited is surprisingly good.
• I can read in Spanish and French. With the click of a button, I can locate definitions for unfamiliar words. This is lovely.
• No root-kits that I know of are loaded onto your computer.

Things that I would like to see improved:

• The notes are hugely important to me. I highlight entire paragraphs at times. But, when I export the notes, they are truncated. So, I have to manually fix them all through a copy-paste method. Admittedly, it is still faster that typing out the highlighted sections, but I would like Sony to update their software so that notes are exported in their entirety.
• I was disappointed that the Sony e-readers no longer support MS Word. I had to convert all my word documents into PDF. That’s why it took me an entire day to transfer all my journal articles and notes.
• Some journal articles already in PDF format do not render nicely especially when the font size is increased.
• The “Reader for PC” interface on my desktop is clunky and slow as it connects to the reader and demands my sign-on to the online Sony systems.  I would like the interface to be streamlined.

I really am starting to like reading this way. And, I cannot emphasize how much I love being able to carry around my PhD-study library. I will add more pros and cons as I think of them.

2 Comments on Using an E-Reader to Manage Your PhD Reading

Considerations for conducting phenomenographic interviews

I am finally ready to start recruiting participants for my doctoral thesis on Identity Positioning of Doctoral Students in Networked Learning Environments. The seemingly endless wait for ethics permission and institutional permission (sometimes known as site permission) was actually a very useful time. I used the time for further reading and reflection on phenomenography in light of the recent methodology workshops and my readings on methods.

Bowden, J. A., & Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenography (p. 154). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.informit.com.au/products/ProductDetails.aspx?id=PHENOMENOGRAPHY_ERIN

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

.

Why study interviewing methods so intensively right now?

I feel strongly that one must understand one’s methodology before collecting data. And, it is important to be mindful of all the choices that one must make while employing data collection methods. Some researchers utilize data collected previously by other researchers for other research purposes. This might be suitable avenue for researchers who have difficulty accessing some participants or whose projects are on tight time constraints. It might also be done simply for convenience. In some cases, seemingly perfect data sets can be procured from national databases such as the UK Data Archive. As I read more deeply about phenomenography, I sense that it is in the best interests of my own study to collect data carefully with sensitivity to phenomenographic theory and procedures of analysis. This is also the position taken by Bowden (2000):

Whatever research method is used, researchers need to articulate the purposes of their project and to keep those purposes in mind at all stages of the research—in the design of the investigation, in the development of the data collection processes, in the collection of data and in the analysis and interpretation. (p. 7)

What is a phenomenographic interview?

Interviewing is the most common method for collecting data in phenomenography (Walsh, 2000, p. 19, Marton, 1986, p. 42). Trigwell (2000) and Dunkin (2000) suggest that the ideal number of interviews rests around 15 to 20. In phenomenological studies, the number of suggested interviews might be less as phenomenology seeks to explore the essence of an individual’s experience in some depth. Phenomenography, on the other hand, focuses on the limited possible ways of experiencing a given phenomenon across a group of individuals. The outcome space (results) is a compilation of categories of description which expresses the variation. As such, it is necessary to reach a balance between depth of description and breadth of experience among a group of individuals.

Interviews are typically semi-structured (or “guided” if you choose Olson’s terminology) and last roughly 40 to 60 minutes or until the “the interviewer feels the experience has been described, and the meaning of relevant words has been revealed (Trigwell, 2000, p. 67). Most phenomenographers seem to agree that the participants should have sufficient flexibility to describe the experiences as they wish in their own way. Hence, most questioning and probing is open-ended. Bowden (Chapter 1) and Prosser (Chapter 3), in working with children, prefer to offer “problem questions” that the participants are asked to resolve. By asking participants to work through problems or tasks “interviewees are encouraged to reveal, through discussion, their ways of understanding a phenomenon, that is, to disclose their relationship to the phenomenon under consideration” (p. 9). Most of the questions in a phenomenographic interview follow from comments of the participant (Trigwell, 2000). Some sample questions that Bowden supplies (p. 10):

• Could you explain further?
• What do you mean by that?
• Is there anything else you would like to say about this problem?

Prosser offers some interesting observations on eliciting information from the participants:

While it is relatively easy to get interviewees to describe their strategies, it is much more difficult to get them to discuss their intentions underlying their strategies and their conceptions of phenomena. (Prosser, 2000, p. 44).

To approach the participant’s conceptions, the researcher must consider the interview/discussion as a whole. According to Marton & Booth (1997) interviews take place on two levels: the interpersonal contact between the interviewer and the participant and at a metacognitive level in which the participant relates his/her awareness of an experience (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87). So, whilst the researcher attempts to maintain focus on the target conception(s), he/she must also provide room for the participant fully express related nuances and details. In some cases, it might be helpful within the context of the co-constructed interaction (see previous blog postings on interviews), for the researcher to share her own experiences. However, Bowden (Chapter 4) warns against “leading too much” to avoid influencing the participants. As per my previous blog postings on interviewing, anything that the researcher discloses during the interview should be as carefully transcribed and reported as the participant’s dialogue.

In some cases, a phenomenographic interview might seem to revolve tediously around the same question over and over again. This is partially true. A phenomenographic interviewer will ask similar questions in different ways so as to elicit a number of different views on the phenomenon. “Typically, a range of questions is used to provide views of each conception from several angles in order to make the description of the conception as rich as possible” (Dall’Alba, 2000, p. 94).

References – refer to

• previous blog posting on phenomenography

No Comments on Considerations for conducting phenomenographic interviews

42 Questions in Discourse Analysis

• Gee, J. P. (2011). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (3rd ed., p. 224). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee lists 42 questions that a researcher can ask when conducting analysis on a given text or set of texts (p. 121). I will put them into a simple table.

In the table, each row represents what he calls a tool of inquiry. The columns represent the building tasks. To understand how to ask the questions, first one must understand the terminology:

Tools of inquiry

Gee refers to tools of inquiry as thinking devices.

Situated meanings – may also be referred to as utterance-token meanings (p. 63). Form = “morphemes, words, phrases, or other syntactic structures” (p. 64). Function = what the utterance is intended to say or cause. If form and function are not in balance, then we might question what is happening. “Situated meanings arise because particular language forms take on specific or situated meanings in specific different contexts of use” (p. 65). Gee notes that analysis is complex because context is always changing. But, we can view an utterance from the viewpoint of different contexts and potentially gain insights into the meaning of the interaction (p. 68).

Social languages – “different styles of varieties of language for different purposes” or different social situations (p. 28). Social languages can have their own “distinctive grammars” (p. 50). They help people recognize and create their social contexts.

Figured worlds – typical, often taken-for-granted, stories or simplified pictures of situations with “typical participants, activities, forms of language, and objects and environments” (p. 71). Holland (1998) defines them as “socially constructed realm[s] of interpretation” (cited in Gee, 2001, p. 71). They are not static. Figured worlds “mediate between the ‘micro’ (small) level of interaction and the ‘macro’ (large) level of institutions” (p. 76). People can use figured worlds to construct simulations of situations to help them understand or act in the given situation(s). People also use figured worlds to evaluate appropriateness of social activity in the world (p. 90). They can be nested, incomplete, inconsistent, and changing. (An examination of figured worlds can help to uncover taken-for-granted assumptions that guide social behaviours—review previous blog posting on Ian Hacking’s book, The social construction of what?”)

Intertextuality – the act of referring to or quoting texts outside of one’s immediate discourse. It is a “sort of cross-reference to another text or type of text” (p. 29). Words may be borrowed or switched from one social language and used in another (p. 58).

Discourses – linguistic and non-linguistic elements that combine into “characteristic ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, and believing” (p. 28). They combine to produce a “socially recognizable identity” (p. 29). [Note: big “D” discourse.] On page35, Gee emphasizes the importance of recognizability. Discourses do not necessarily have clear boundaries; they can overlap, split, meld, die, mutate, etc. (p. 38).

Conversations – Gee uses this word with a big “C” to refer to “all the talk and writing that has gone on in a specific social group or in society at large around a major theme, debate, or motif” (p. 29). He adds later, “They are the products of historical disputes between and among different Discourses” (p. 56).

Building Tasks

For each building task, Gee suggests that a researcher can ask the following questions:

Given what the speaker has said or the writer has written, and how it has been said or written, what

• [things, people, practices, identity(s), relationships, connections, disconnections, sign systems, languages, social languages, ways of knowing]

in this context are relevant and significantand in what ways are they significant? How is the speaker or writer trying to

• [give significance to things, enact things, depict things, recruit things, use things, connect things, disconnect things, privilege things, disprivilege things]?

Note: From my perspective, the building tasks of identity, relationships, and connections can be very difficult to separate. In particular, I see identity as highly integrated with relationships.

Questions from combining the tools of inquiry with the building task

Here is how Gee phrases the questions from the table of 42:

Significance: “How are situated meanings, social languages, figured worlds, intertextuality, Discourses, and Conversations being used to build relevance or significance for things and people?” (p. 121).

He asks the same question for each building task.

So, my question is what elements of this do I take with me when I do my phenomenographic study? It is definitely helpful in expanding the way I will read the interview transcripts. Gee’s book is also helpful for me in developing my transcription protocols. Now onto Wetherell et. al.

5 Comments on 42 Questions in Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis & a constructionist approach to phenomenography

Gee, J. P. (2011). An Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed., p. 224). New York, NY: Routledge. http://www.amazon.ca/gp/reader/0415585708

I am exploring the use of discourse analysis (DA) alongside the constructionistt phenomenographic methodology that I will be using on my PhD thesis. So, I have started with what has turned out to be a nicely written introductory text by James Paul Gee.

As my first love in academia was languages and linguistics, I feel very comfortable with Gee’s text. In fact, it feels much like a homecoming. I now understand why social constructionist philosophy has become, quite unintentionally, so significant in my doctoral work. In this book, Gee’s own philosophies about language are made clear:

In the broadest sense, we make meaning by using language to say things that, in actual contexts of use, amount, as well, to doing things and being things. These things we do and are (identities) then come to exist in the world and they, too, bring about other things in the world. We use language to build things in the world and to engage in the world building. (p. 16)

To an extent, I try to contain my excitement upon reading this until I can fully ascertain that Gee does not cross the line into critical realism—the idea that there is a reality out there, but we can only see it from our own limited perspective. (I know that this is an oversimplification.) The danger of this crossing could have been perpetrated in Gee’s treatment of the other “stuff” related to language such as non-vocalized behavours, appearances, enactments, social institutions, and props—the context of language (p. 35).  However, Gee appears firmly rooted in the social constructionist camp. Consider, for example, how he refers to knowledge:

. . . the physics that the experimental physicists “know” is, in large part, not in their heads. Rather, it is spread out (distributed), inscribed in (and often trapped in) scientific apparatus, symbolic systems, books, papers, and  journal, institutions, habits of bodies, routines of practice, and other people. Each domain of practice, each scientific Discourse . . . attunes actions, expressions, objects, and people (the scientists themselves) so that they become “workable” in relation to each other and in relation to tools, technologies, symbols, texts,  and the objects they study in the world. They are in sync. (p. 36)

In this example, a given discourse exists and creates and recreates itself including the scientists who engage in the discourse. This recognition of the cyclical relationship between language and perceptions of reality is, in my opinion, a cornerstone of social constructionism.  Later on the same page, Gee uses the word instantiation with reference to the power of language to create a constantly shifting and abstract world. This, too, dramatically buoys a social constructionist position. (Interestingly, Gee suggests reading Bourdieu, Clark, Engeström, Foucault, Hacking, Hutchins, Latour, Lave & Wenger, and Wittgenstein—all of whom have constructionist leanings or whose work has been foundational to constructionism.)

Before I outline how I will use DA to support my phenomenographic research, I will first post my notes on the main concepts of Gee’s book. But, that is for tomorrow.

1 Comment on Discourse analysis & a constructionist approach to phenomenography

Literature & Your PhD Thesis: A Balancing Act

I consider myself fortunate in that I appreciate reading the “old” authors in my field and adjacently related fields. I am delighted when I read something written many years ago (such as from the late 1800s or early 1900s) and discover that it is still useful or somehow applicable—or somehow provides a different view on a current issue.

But, how should a student balance the sources in the literature review? I have heard that some students are criticized because they have cited nothing older than 10 years. To an extent, I agree with such criticism because it suggests that the student may not understand the origins of the philosophical or methodological ideas upon which they draw. On the other hand, too much reliance upon the classics in the field might leave little room for more current research.

To this point, I recently stumbled upon a different and rather unique view on this issue:

There are many reasons for scientists interested in these matters to examine the long history of philosophical inquiry when beginning their empirical investigations. In many cases we may find that earlier philosophers have provided the clearest delineation of paradoxes and problems for further inquiry, even when techniques to answer them were not yet available. In other cases, attention to prior philosophical debates may provide a map of intellectual space. For example, if two independently compelling claims are logically inconsistent with one another, then models that attempt to accommodate both claims must be dismissed as incoherent. A third, “therapeutic” role for attention to the history of philosophy was suggested by Wittgenstein and has been famously adopted by Daniel Dennett (1991): we may discover that outdated philosophical models continue to underlie our unexamined assumptions about some phenomenon. Alternatively, even discredited or incomplete philosophical models may serve as sources of inspiration that point towards innovative ways of thinking about familiar problems. (Chiong, 2011, p. 1)

Something to ponder.

Resources

Chiong, W. (2011). The self: From philosophy to cognitive neuroscience. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2010.532808.

No Comments on Literature & Your PhD Thesis: A Balancing Act

Mead: Quotes about Embodiment, the Self, and the Interaction between the “I” and the “Me”

(Note: Converted from Livescribe Pen via MyScript. Possible typos.)

“The self has the characteristic that it is an object to itself, and that characteristic distinguishes it from other objects and from the body” (p. 136).

“The parts of the body are quite distinguishable from the self. We can lose parts of the body without any serious invasion of the self. . . the body does not experience itself as a whole, in a sense in which the self in some way enters into the experience of the self” (p. 136).

The word self is reflexive: ”oneself”. As such, Mead suggests that the self can be both subject and object” (p. 136-137).

“The ‘I’ of this moment is the present in the ‘me’ of the next moment. . . It is as we act that we are aware of ourselves” (p. 174).

The GENERALIZED OTHER: “how the community exercises control over the conduct of its individual members” (affects the individual’s thinking) (p. 155).

ATTITUDES: “organized sets of responses” (p. 161).

Community: “A person is a personality because he belongs to a community, because he takes over the institutions of that community into his own conduct. . . The structure, then, on which the self is built, is this response which is common to all, for one has to be a member of a community to be a self” (p. 162).

“We cannot have rights unless we have common attitude” (p. 164).

“Selves can only exist in definite relationships to other selves” (p. 164).

The self as a “structural process” (p. 165).

Institutional Form ”. . . the whole community acts toward the individual under certain circumstances in an identical way” (p. 167).

References:

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self & society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. (C. W. Morris, Ed.) (Vol. 13). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

No Comments on Mead: Quotes about Embodiment, the Self, and the Interaction between the “I” and the “Me”

#phdchat – 1st time

Today I participated in my first #phdchat in Twitter. To be honest, it felt a bit chaotic. But, I had the sense that there were more participants than normal. It’s a strange way to communicate. At 140 characters an utterance, one must consider how to best use those characters.

Nevertheless, the #phdchat group provides leads to some very good resources.

How to find this group:

• http://twitter.com/search?q=%23phdchat

Information about this group:

• https://www.martineve.com/2011/02/02/on-phdchat-call-for-collaborationhistory-overview-themes-and-response/

The phdchat daily:

• http://paper.li/tag/phdchat

And the phdchat wiki:

• http://phdchat.pbworks.com/w/page/33280234/PhD-Chat

When: Wednesdays at 12:30 pm (MST/Edmonton time)

2 Comments on #phdchat – 1st time

Mendeley – Phenomenal tool for keeping track of references

A friend, Jeffrey, Tweeted about Mendeley. So, I watched the video while getting ready to start working through my proposal today.

Phenomenal. I’ve been trying to keep my library synchronized across computers. I’ve been using Windows Desktop Search to locate them on my hard drive while writing. But, I fear it slows my system. I have been carefully organizing all my PDFs and notes into topic folders. But, the problem is that they belong in multiple folders. To solve that problem, I have been using tags in RefWorks. (And, of course, I have been keeping paper copies filed by author’s last name in a filing cabinet in my office.) As a result, I have been constantly cross-searching different systems. This has been working, but I think Mendeley might make things even more efficient.

Although Mendeley indicates that you can Import and Export with other referencing software, it does not mention Refworks. Good news: I was able to export a .txt file from Refworks and upload it into my Mendeley interface. Then, I was able to synchronize it online.

The synchronization feature is brilliant because it means that I can install the Mendeley interface on my travel computer or any other computer and synchronize the references with those computers. No more carting around USB drives and carefully dating the most recent list.

My only problem now, is to upload the articles. I have been careful to upload the URLs for journal articles, but I want easy access to my library from anywhere in the world. I can match the PDFs with the citations on my less productive hours. Mendeley is not intended as a publishing tool, but a resource-networking tool. I will investigate this further as I wish to respect copyright legislation.

Note that Mendeley also allows you to search through others’ reference lists, connect with other researchers, etc. Hence, it also serves as a social networking tool.

I have yet to explore it further.

Back to writing!

1 Comment on Mendeley – Phenomenal tool for keeping track of references

Actor Network Theory (ANT)

A friend shared his ANT paper with me. The penny dropped. I did not previously envision how one would “trace networks”. In his paper, he traced a variety of actors (human and non-human) that were required to enable a current process to act.

The real-life example of an ANT analysis was very helpful to understand what LaTour meant by the following statements:

• “There is no society, no social realm, and no social ties [LaTour was reacting against the preset social concepts in sociology], but there exists translations between mediators that may gnerate traceable associations” (p. 108) [ANT seems to be commensurate with relational approaches.]
• “. . . a good account will perform the social in the precise sense that some of the participants in the action–through the controversial agency of the author–will be assembled in such as way that they can be collected together” (p. 138).
• details are the key in ANT research (my notes).
• “a network is the trance left behind by some moving agent” (p. 132).

An important ingredient is LaTour’s conception of “intermediaries” and “mediators”. As you read the definitions below, think of a complex network of interactions between actors in a given situation and consider which of the actors is an intermediary and which is a mediator:

INTERMEDIARY

• transports meaning without transformation
• inputs = outputs
• one entity, thought might have many parts (complex)

MEDIATOR

• may count for one, many, nothing, infinity . . .
• input != (not equal) output (no predictors)
• transforms, translates, distorts, modifies meaning of elements (inputs)
• may lead in multiple directions

LaTour writes there is “constant uncertainty over the intimate nature of entities–are they behaving as intermediaries or as mediators?” (p. 39).

PRINCIPLE OF IRREDUCTION

• “the philosophical meaning of ANT: a concatenation of mediators does not trace the same connections and does not require the same type of explanations as a retinue of intermediaries transporting a cause” (p. 107).

According to LaTour, good accounts trace networks as you have done in this paper. But, for him, the identification of mediators vs. intermediaries is very important: “As soon as actors are treated not as intermediaries but as mediators, they render the movement of the social visible to the reader” (p. 128).

Looking back at the analysis, some of the actors identified have become visible to us. Why? And, are there any actors that might be escaping our view because they are behaving as intermediaries? Hmmm . . . is it possible that a true affordance might be one such invisible actor? Or, are affordances mediators in that they transform, translate, etc. the meaning of actors/elements? I suspect that an intermediary can sometimes act as a mediator and vice-versa.

Reference

LaTour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

No Comments on Actor Network Theory (ANT)