Search

The ‘distributed cognition’ research program, initiated by Edwin Hutchins, has contributed to the development of the ‘course of action’ research program from 1987 until now. Edwin Hutchins has recently recognized the proximity between his last researches, developed in terms of embodied and distributed cognition, and the enaction paradigm, followed by this ‘course of action’ research program. The question of the definition of an "augmented ‘course of action’ research program" is now raised. Such "program" should, in relation with this enaction paradigm, deepen and synthetize the past contributions of the ‘distributed cognition’ research program to the ‘course of action’ research program and add new contributions from it. Such deepening, synthesis, and renewal of the contributions to the ‘course of action’ research program are made easy by the mutual contribution and addition of different theoretical and methodological results obtained by the two research programs. We will present here our personal answer to this question.

The 'distributed cognition' research program, initiated by Edwin Hutchins, has contributed to the development of the 'course of action' research program from 1987 until now. Edwin Hutchins has recently recognized the proximity between his last researches, developed in terms of embodied and distributed cognition, and the enaction paradigm, followed by this 'course of action' research program. The question of the definition of an "augmented 'course of action' research program" is now raised. Such "program" should, in relation with this enaction paradigm, deepen and synthetize the past contributions of the 'distributed cognition' research program to the 'course of action' research program and add new contributions from it. Such deepening, synthesis, and renewal of the contributions to the 'course of action' research program are made easy by the mutual contribution and addition of different theoretical and methodological results obtained by the two research programs. We will present here our personal answer to this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'distributed cognition' research program, initiated by Edwin Hutchins, has contributed to the development of the 'course of action' research program from 1987 to the present day. Edwin Hutchins having recently recognized the close relationship between his latest research, developed in terms of embodied and distributed cognition, and his research on the enaction paradigm, of which this 'course of action' research program is a part, the question now arises of the definition of an "augmented 'course of action' research program". In relation to this enaction paradigm, such a program should go into greater depth and provide a new synthesis of the 'distributed cognition' research program's past contributions to the 'course of action' research program and integrate its new contributions. This in-depth analysis, synthesis and renewal of the contributions to the 'course of action' research program are facilitated by the mutual contribution and addition of different theoretical and methodological results obtained by the two research programs over recent decades. In this paper we will present our personal view of the answer to this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'distributed cognition' research program, initiated by Edwin Hutchins, has contributed to the development of the 'course of action' research program from 1987 to the present day. Edwin Hutchins having recently recognized the close relationship between his latest research, developed in terms of embodied and distributed cognition, and that on the enaction paradigm, of which this 'course of action' research program is a part, the question now arises of the definition of an "augmented 'course of action' research program". In relation to this enaction paradigm, such a program should go into greater depth and provide a new synthesis of the 'distributed cognition' research program's past contributions to the 'course of action' research program and integrate its new contributions. This in-depth analysis, synthesis and renewal of the contributions to the 'course of action' research program are facilitated by the mutual contribution and addition of different theoretical and methodological results obtained by the two research programs over recent decades. In this paper we will present our personal view of the answer to this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

State formation below the national scale remains under-researched. In this article, the reconstitution of the local history of an upland region of Laos - Sepon - reveals a process of state formation from a territorial margin. Contrary to James C. Scott’s thesis on state-evading peoples, members of a local ethnic minority population - the Phuthai - have been part of the making of the state over centuries. In addition to the material aspects of state-making, this article explores its intangible components that are often neglected in analyses of state formation. This wider lens is particularly applied to the Communist state-making efforts in Sepon during the American-Vietnam War. These have had the unintended consequence of producing a new class that replicates age-old social hierarchies and have resulted in Sepon, and probably other upland areas of contemporary Laos, being more socially inequitable than the Communist Revolution intended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores a contrast between two strategies of intervention research. The first strategy, referred to as design experimentation, came to prominence through the writing of Ann Brown and Allan Collins. Design experiments were described as attempts to engineer innovative learning environments and simultaneously understand salient aspects of human cognition and learning. The core of the method is to place a version of a learning design into the world and iteratively revise the design in light of results from each implementation. The second strategy is referred to as mutual appropriation, a term used by Newman, Griffin, and Cole to describe teaching/learning processes in classrooms, but subsequently introduced into the intervention literature by Brown and Campione to describe an intervention process in which the nature of the intervention is not pre-specified, but negotiated among participants over time. We endeavor to show that a mutual appropriation approach can help the field create interventions which are themselves developmental in their fundamental methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]