Everyone Read

• Edwin Hutchins, “Cognitive Ecology” (DCog, ecological psychology, enactivism, and CHAT)
• Re-read Shaffer & Clinton, “Toolforthoughts: Reexamining Thinking in the Digital Age”” (CHAT, DCog, ANT, and mediated action)

Discussion Groups

Groups will be assigned in class. Each group will be responsible for informing the class about what is interesting

1. Latour Meets Activity Theory (ANT vs CHAT):
   • Read: Latour, “On Interobjectivity”
   • Read: Engeström, “Interobjectivity, Ideality, and Dialectics”
   • Skim: Other responses to Latour
   • Latour, “Pursuing the Discussion of Interobjectivity With a Few Friends” (focus on responses to Engeström)
2. Book Symposium on Hutchins’ Cognition in the Wild  in Mind, Culture, & Activity (DCog vs ANT (& more))
   • Reviews of CitW (read them all, focus on Latour)
   • Hutchins, Response to Reviewers
3. Comparisons – Situated Action, DCog, CHAT, and ANT
   • Bonnie A. Nardi, “Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models, and Distributed Cognition” (with special relevance to HCI)
   • Reijo Miettinen, “The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor‐network theory as approaches to studying innovations”
4. Hutchins on Clark’s Supersizing the Mind, symposium from Philosophical Studies (DCog vs. Extended Mind)
   • Read: Clark, “Précis of Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension“
   • Read: Hutchins, “Enculturating the Supersized Mind”
   • Skim: Rupert, “Cognitive systems and the supersized mind”
   • Clark, “Finding the Mind” (focus on responses to Hutchins)

(via Sour Mash Manifesto and Sku’s Recent Eats.)

Think of this research proposal in terms of grant applications, applications for IRB approval, and dissertation proposals. They should provide a clear description of the project in a way that can be understood by a scholar who is not a specialist in the field, such that it could be competitive in a multidisciplinary panel evaluation.

Part I – Letter of Intent

1 page document (see formatting guidelines below), due 4/9 on Turnitin.com

The letter of intent describes the proposed research, including the research question, hypothesis, and methods to be applied. Pay special attention to the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the project (see evaluation criteria below). Your LOI should include a very brief bio that describes your background and experience as relevant to the proposed project. LOI should include the project title. (The goal of the LOI is to receive instructor feedback on the basic topic and ideas of your project before getting too far with the proposal.)

Part II – Final Proposal

Final proposal is due May 12 at 11:59pm on Turnitin.com. Final proposal must have the following components:

• Project description – 8 pages maximum, not including references (see formatting guidelines below). Describes the research project, including the research question, hypothesis, methods and theoretical framework. Should include a literature review that makes clear the intellectual merit of the proposal as well as a separate section addressing the broader impacts of the project.
  
• Abbreviated budget – 1 page max document that gives the major budget items and descriptive justification for those items.
• Biographical sketch – 2 pages max biographical sketch of the researcher, including relevant publications, coursework, and other experience relevant to the proposed project.
• Supplementary documents – Sample informed consent form, recruitment materials for gathering research subjects, etc.

Group Project Option

Interested students can choose to submit research proposals in groups of two or more. Two-person projects are subject to the following modified requirements:

• Project description – 15 pages maximum, not including references. 
• Full budget – You must fill out and submit the UT Dallas Office of Sponsored Projects Standard Budget Template as well as a justification for each line in the budget. (More info on preparing a budget here.)
• IRB Review Application Form – Application for minimal review is fine IF your project meets minimal review criteria. You only need to attach the form to your submission. You do not need to send it to the IRB.
• Separate biographical sketches for each researcher.
• LOI should be submitted jointly with bio for each researcher.

Three person projects are subject to the following modifications (including all 2-person modifications):

• External Funding – You must identify a specific funding program relevant to your project and identify it by funding organization and program name at the head of your project description. Your project description should include all requirements of that funding program. Useful links:
  • NSF Funding Opportunity Search
  • UTD OSP Funding Opportunity Resources
  • UTD OSP New Funding Announcements by Deadline
  • NEH Office of Digital Humanities
  • SPIN Database
• IRB Application – You must submit your application to the UTD IRB and receive approval.

Groups of four or more should seek prior approval from the instructor and instructions modifications of requirements.

Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria for the proposals is similar to the major review criteria for grant proposals at the National Science Foundation (NSF):

1. Intellectual Merit – What is the potential for the proposed research to advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
2. Broader Impacts – What is the potential for the proposed research to benefit society or advanced desired social goals?

Further review criteria include:

3. Does the project follow all of the content and formatting requirements?
4. How creative, original, and potentially transformative is the proposed research?
5. Is the research based on a sound rationale, including a solid theoretical and methodological basis?
6. How realistic is the project? Could the researcher likely complete it as planned? Is there a mechanism for evaluating success?
7. How well does the proposal incorporate theories and perspectives from the course?

Formatting Guidelines

Formatting guidelines are consistent with and based on the NSF Grant Proposal Guide. The proposal must be clear and easy to read, and it should follow these general guidelines:

1. Use one of the following typefaces:
   1. Arial, Helvetica, Palatino, or similar typeface at font size of 10 points or larger.
   2. Times New Roman or Computer Modern family of fonts at a font size of 11 points or larger.
2. No more than six lines of text within a vertical space of one inch. Beyond this, line spacing (single-spaced, double-spaced, etc.) is at the discretion of the proposer, but readability should be taken into account.
3. Margins, in all directions, must be at least an inch.
4. Use only a standard, single-column format for the text.

The guidelines specified above establish the minimum type size requirements; however, you are advised that readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font and page formatting for use in the proposal. Too many characters or words on a single line combined with closely spaced lines can have a negative effect on the readability of your proposal. Poor readability can impact your score on the assignment, and exceedingly unreadable formatting may lead to a failing grade on the project. (These things have a very real effect on reviewers in the real world.)

Please let me know if you have any questions.

There is no bad whiskey. There are only some whiskeys that aren’t as good as others.

― Raymond Chandler

Price: $30.

In honor of the recently deceased Truman Cox of the A. Smith Bowman distillery, I picked up a bottle of this today, the lowest level of their small batch bourbons. According to Chuck Cowdery, “The whiskey is distilled at Buffalo Trace in Frankfort. The new make is sent to Virginia where it is distilled a third time and entered into barrels. Aging and bottling is done in Virginia,” in the copper pot still mentioned on the label. No age statement, nor does it mention when it was bottled, though the number “12221″ printed on the bottle suggest it may be have been bottled 2012-22-1. It does have a cute fake tax stamp on it.

Light tawny honey color. Beautiful sweet nose, fruity and floral, honey and apples. Tastes less sweet than the nose would lead you to believe, with crisp and fresh taste, maybe white grapes and honeydew melon, along with some dried apricot. If there is any problem with this one, it is a slight bitter, astringent note on the finish, which is accompanied by a nice, darker fruit flavor (raisins or dried plums or Beaujolais nouveau).

Overall, an interesting, nice change of pace from what I’m used to in the ryes and bourbons I’ve been drinking lately. I tend to like a lot of rye spice and wood influence, and there’s very little of that here. It is less often I go for the sweeter stuff, though I do occasionally like a really nice wheater (I love Old Weller Antique 107°), and I do like Angel’s Envy, which is definitely on the sweet side. This isn’t really like any of those. Not sure I’ve had a bourbon I would describe as crispy before. Let’s call it a B+.

What this really does is make me want to try the John J. or the Abraham Bowman.

• Cole, Cultural Psychology, Chapters 8-11

Methods Discussion: Cultural Models Analysis II

• Due: Interview Project Part II

CCC Home | Next Week

• Michael Cole, Cultural Psychology Chapters 5-7

Methods Discussion: Cultural Models Analysis

• Read: Naomi Quinn, “How to Reconstruct Schemas People Share, From What They Say” in Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods
• Work on: Interview Project Part II

CCC Home | Next Week

• Michael Cole, Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Introduction and Chapters 1-4. 

Methods Discussion: Interviewing, Indexing, and Transcribing

• Read Lindlof & Taylor’s discussion of “Qualitative Interviewing”.
• Due: Interview Project Part 1

CCC Home | Next Week

Topics

Your paper should be of one of the following types:

1. Interpretation / Explanation: Analyze or interpret an existing C3 system or process using theoretical concepts from the course and empirical data from existing studies. (You are not to gather new empirical data for this project.) The empirical studies you cite do not need to apply C3 theories themselves. Indeed, it is better if they do not. Your job is to show that some C3 ideas better account for some existing phenomena than the orthodox theories of cognition, culture, or communication.
   • A great example of this kind of work is Jean Lave’s discussion of previous studies of learning transfer in Chapter 2 of Cognition in Practice
   • Another example is Mike Cole’s discussion of classic cross-cultural psychology in Cultural Psychology
2. Theoretical / Methodological Issues: There are a number of unsettled issues and theoretical disputes among C3 theories about the best way to study C3 systems and processes. Your job is to give a clear explanation of the dispute or issue, explain what is at stake, and provide a way of resolving it that is philosophically, theoretically, or empirically well-motivated and compelling. Here are some potentially fruitful issues.
   • Actor-Network Theory and many of the other views differ on whether humans have a special place in C3 systems, or whether they are to be treated symmetrically with non-human cultural artifacts and parts of the natural environment.
   • D-Cog sticks closest to classic cognitive science by continuing to rely on the resources of classical and connectionist computation to analyze the cognitive activities of C3 systems. Should cognition still be analyzed computationally in C3 theories?
3. Critical Engagements: In the course we have read mostly defenses of radical approaches to C3 systems and processes. Of course, these approaches have been criticized from the more orthodox point of view. Your job is to research one particular set of criticisms. You can either respond on behalf of some C3 theory, validate and extend the critique, or find some middle ground. For example:
   • Philosophers like Robert Rubert, Ken Aizawa, and Fred Adams have attack philosophical and scientific theories that extend the mind beyond the brain or individual. They argue that a more conservative account which treats the mind as “embedded” without treating the external factors as “constituent” parts of mind / cognition.
   • Psychologists like Margaret Wilson have questioned views of “embodied cognition” that involve environment and action as central to cognition along empirical and explanatory grounds.
   • Sociologists (and other social scientists) like Graham Button have questioned distributed cognition theories from the perspective of adequate theories of society.

Format

1. Ordinary, easily readable fonts, font size, margins, etc. Be reasonable; aim at readability not flashy style.
2. First page must include your name, UTD-ID, date, the section number you are registered in (e.g., “ACN 6V81.501″, “EMAC6372.501″ etc), the title of your paper, and an abstract, 100-200 words.
3. Every subsequent page should include a page number and preferably your last name in the header or footer.
4. Citations according to some major manual of style, preferably APA or Chicago, preferably author-date format. Take proper citation practices seriously.
5. Maximum of 2400 words (including references and footnotes but not abstract and header).
6. Review these further generic tips and guidelines.

Egregious failure to follow formatting guidelines will result in an automatic failing grade on the assignment at the discretion of the instructor.

Due 4/30, in class and online via Turnitin.com. You will have to give a relatively informal presentation of your paper.

This project is optional. You can choose to do it or to complete the Video Ethnography Project.

Getting Started: I strongly recommend you re-read many of the methodological readings associated with ethnography, participant observation, and cognitive ethnography as you carry out this project. I especially recommend you have another look at Robert F. Williams, “Using Cognitive Ethnography to Study Instruction” and Lindlof & Taylor, “Participating, Observing, and Recording Social Action”.

Part 1: Transcription of Activity in Video from Your Setting

Directions:

1. Remember that you cannot collect any video data until you have obtained informed consent. All participants in the activity being videoed (or who might be incidentally videoed) must sign the video consent form.
2. Make observations: You may already have observed, photographed, and interviewed some members of the community. In this project you should conduct a more systematic study of the ways that people make meaning in everyday activity. Talk to the people and observe them in the activity. Take notes on their activities, describe their tasks, and videotape a person or, preferably, persons interacting with their environment or with one another. Collect at least 15 minutes of video.
3. Create an index and select clips for analysis: Using the method introduced in the interview activity, create an index for your video. Select clips totaling at least 30 seconds duration for analysis.
4. Transcribe clips: Make a detailed transcription of the activity in your selected clips. Use the assigned readings for models of ways to transcribe non-verbal aspects of on-going activity. Here is a sample transcript by Professor Edwin Hutchins.

Part 2: Analysis of Activity in Video

Directions:

1. Analysis: Analyze the recorded activity using the concepts presented in the lectures and readings.
2. Write up the analysis. Be sure your analysis makes use of the concepts in the readings.
3. Please also turn in a copy of your index and transcription. It is expected that you will have made changes to these during the course of your analysis.
4. Note: NO INFORMED CONSENT = NO GRADE.

Maximum 1000 words of text for your analysis. Attach the index, transcript, and any additional figures and tables.

Due 4/30, in class. You will have to give a relatively informal presentation of your project. If you have received consent to use the video in a classroom setting, you may show clips if you bring them in a suitable format. (Please make arrangements ahead of time.)

This project is optional. You can choose to do it or to complete the Theoretical Research Paper assignment.