INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Sociocultural perspectives: Rommetveit’s position Anders Mørch and Sisse Finken TOOL 5100/INF 5200,

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Outline The topics addressed by Rommetveit Background and assumptions Organization of the paper Unit of analysis (linguistic utterances) Intersubjectivity and related terms Methodological concerns What computers can’t do A new foundation for design What computers can do: Implications for CSCL

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, The topics addressed by Rommetveit He gives a critique of the cognitive science approach to meaning making Presents the dialogical alternative, referred to as the social cognitive approach Treats these two approaches as different paradigms of human cognition and commutation By this Rommetveit aims at a “thorough analysis of socially negotiated perspective fixation” to arrive at a “socially negotiated contextual specification” as a shared state of affairs

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Background and assumptions Many cited as well as un-cited assumptions make the paper hard to grasp in its entirety Rommetveit engages in many dialogs with previous scholars (intertextuality at work) When it comes to scientific method –Kuhn, Popper, Wittgenstein, Feyerabend

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Key concepts Perspective –Used when negotiating meaning –Multiple (speakers, listener) perspectives Position –I assume this relates to the approach of presenting hypotheses and statements (summarizing his understanding in 24 theses) Aspect –Adopted from Wittgenstein (dawning of an aspect) –Think of particle/wave duality of light

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Further distinctions Monological approach –Associated with the cognitive science, thought is monologue with one self –Thought can be modeled to high accuracy and the computer is well equipped for thus purpose –Key proponents: Simon and Newell; Anderson Dialogical approach –Mind embedded in a social context and mediated by a cultural collective –Additional proponents: Wertsch; Säljö

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Key ideas and adoptions Kuhn on paradigm –Rommetveit proposes the dialogical approach as a new paradigm of human cognition and communication Wittgenstein on language use –the meaning of a word is in its use Popper on multiple worlds –Rommetveit suggests intersubjectivity as a “fourth world” (physical, mental, objective, intersubjective) Feyerabend on method –It is unclear to me what methodology means to Rommetveit

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Key ideas and adoptions cont’d Social construction of reality (Berger and Luckmann) –Shared social reality (this is the ground for intersubjectivity) –Prerequisite: social interaction and shared situations Note: It is unclear to me how this term is related to Engeström’s notion of object –They seem to be related but there are no cross- referencing between the two! –Rommetveit is primarily concerned with abstract (linguistic) objects

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, The problem of AI AI (Artificial Intelligence) is the “demon lurking in the background” when I read the paper ;-) It is true that AI has had an enormous influence on cognitive science and computer science The influence is more apparent with respect to methodology and less with respect to theory Today AI techniques has been adopted in programming languages and search engines

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Organization of the paper The paper is argumentative and presents a position (set of theses) and gives both empirical and conceptual justifications for its claims Empirical support in terms for examples (spoken utterances) and conceptual support in terms of summarizing and referencing previous work It argues in support of the dialogical (socio-cognitive) approach and against the cognitive science (information processing) approach The computer does not play a significant role except as reference (modeling device) in the cognitive approach

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Organization cont’d The list of 24 thesis is hard to read by themselves, but they make more sense once one has read through the paper The provide a summary of 30 years of research in these issues

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Unit of analysis (linguistic utterances) Also referred to as “micro analysis” Empirical examples, including –Mr. Smith is WORKING this morning, he is mowing the lawn” (uttered to Betty) –“Mr. Smith is NOT WORKING this morning, he is mowing the lawn” (uttered to Mr. Jones) –“Engage in physical exercise” (an alternative interpretation of Mr. Smith‘s intention for cutting the grass)

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Intersubjectivity and related terms Intersubjectivity –Spoken utterances driven by speaker and listener’s goal of “mutual attunement,” reaching for and contributing to a shared social reality (external state of affairs) –Not private (subjective), nor public (objective), but shared by two or more people who (get to) know(s) each other Grounding (e.g. Clark) –This is related to intersubjectivity but not the same as it

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Multiple worlds Popper would say 1)Physical 2)Subjective (mental, cognitive) 3)Objective (world of shared ideas) Rommetveit would add 4)Intersubjective (my interpretation) Other..

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Methodological concerns Rommetveit uses a sociocultural-linguistic approach to get at intersubjective experience Performs micro analysis at the level of utterances It is unclear where his empirical examples come from and the rationale for leisure activity as inquiry domain (rather than work or learning) He does not take into account gestures and other nonverbal signals, as in interaction analysis It is also different from macro approaches to analysis such as Activity theory (which uses the activity as unit of analysis)

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, What computers can’t do He is concerned about the limitations of computers seen from the point of view og cognition (referring to Hubert Dreyfuss) –The computer can not capture contextual relationships in the same way humans do –By this he is pointing out the limitations of the representational (cognitive information processing) approach to modeling human cognition

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, A new foundation for design He is referencing Winograd and Flores on this They are also criticizing the information processing approach to human cognition Instead they suggest a theory-informed approach that builds on, among others, on speech act theory The critique and the suggestions are not properly aligned according to Rommetveit (and me) Example: The Coordinator system in CSCW

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, What computers can do: Implications for CSCL The computer can be seen as an information processing machine (in fact it is built as such) and as a modeling device (simulation) From the point of use it can also be seen as a mediating artifact not unlike many other tools we interact with in everyday life –Concrete tools (chairs, pencils, screens) –Abstract tools (language, symbols, ideas)

INF5200/TOOL5100: CSCW/L Common themes: Intersubjectivity Lecture 3, Relevance to CSCW and CSCL Interaction thought shared spaces (Ellis et al; Bannon & Bødker) such as forums can be explained by aspects of Rommetveitian (and related) terms –Intersubjectivity and grounding (Clark) –Interobjectivity (Engeström) –Intertextuality (post modern writings) –Micro third world objects (Ludvigsen & Mørch, 2003)