CHAPTER 6
Social Constructivism
Introduction 162
The Rise of Constructivism in IR 162
Constructivism as Social Theory 164
Constructivist Theories of International
Relations 168
Critiques of Constructivism 172
The Constructivist Research Programme 175
KEY POINTS 176
QUESTIONS 177
GUIDE TO FURTHER READING 177
WEB LINKS 177
❚ Summary
This chapter introduces social constructivist theory of IR. We first clarify where constructivism
comes from and why it has established itself as an important approach in IR. Constructivism is
examined both as a meta-theory about the nature of the social world and as a substantial theory of
IR. Several examples of constructivist IR-theory are presented, followed by reflections on the
strengths and weaknesses of the approach.
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 161
162 Introduction to International Relations
Introduction
The focus of social constructivism (in shorthand: constructivism) is on human awareness
or consciousness and its place in world affairs. Much IR-theory, and especially neorealism,
is materialist; it focuses on how the distribution of material power, such as military forces
and economic capabilities, defines balances of power between states and explains the behaviour
of states. Constructivists reject such a one-sided material focus. They argue that the
most important aspect of international relations is social, not material. Furthermore, they
argue that this social reality is not objective, or external, to the observer of international
affairs. The social and political world, including the world of international relations, is not a
physical entity or material object that is outside human consciousness. Consequently, the study
of international relations must focus on the ideas and beliefs that inform the actors on the
international scene as well as the shared understandings between them (see web link 6.01).
The international system is not something ‘out there’ like the solar system. It does not
exist on its own. It exists only as an intersubjective awareness among people; in that sense
the system is constituted by ideas, not by material forces. It is a human invention or creation
not of a physical or material kind but of a purely intellectual and ideational kind. It is a set
of ideas, a body of thought, a system of norms, which has been arranged by certain people
at a particular time and place.
If the thoughts and ideas that enter into the existence of international relations change, then
the system itself will change as well, because the system consists in thoughts and ideas. That
is the insight behind the oft-repeated phrase by constructivist Alexander Wendt: ‘anarchy is
what states make of it’ (1992). The claim sounds innocent but the potential consequences are
far-reaching: suddenly the world of IR becomes less fixated in an age-old structure of anarchy;
change becomes possible in a big way because people and states can start thinking about each
other in new ways and thus create new norms that may be radically different from old ones.
This chapter introduces constructivist theory of IR. We first clarify where constructivism
comes from and why it has established itself as an important approach in IR over a short
period of time. The nature of constructivist theory is examined: is it a meta-theory about the
nature of the social world or is it a substantial theory of IR, or is it both? That leads to a brief
presentation of the constructivist contributions to IR-theory and some reflections on the
strengths and weaknesses of the approach.
The Rise of Constructivism in IR
Beginning in the 1980s, constructivism has become an increasingly significant approach,
especially in North American IR. During the Cold War there was a clear pattern of power
balancing between two blocs, led by the United States and the Soviet Union respectively.
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 162
Social Constructivism 163
After the end of the Cold War and following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the situation
turned much more fluid and open. It soon became clear that the parsimonious neorealist
theory was not at all clear about the future developments of the balance of power. Neorealist
logic dictates that other states will balance against the US because offsetting US power is a
means of guaranteeing one’s own security; such balancing will lead to the emergence of new
great powers in a multipolar system. But since the end of the Cold War, this has not happened;
Waltz argues that it will eventually happen ‘tomorrow’ (2002). Another neorealist,
Christopher Layne speculates that it could take some fifty years before Japan and Germany
start balancing against the US (1993). The constructivist claim is that neorealist uncertainty
is closely connected to the fact that the theory is overly spare and materialist; and constructivists
argue that a focus on thoughts and ideas leads to a better theory about anarchy and
power balancing.
Some liberals (see chapter 4) have basically accepted neorealist assumptions as a starting
point for analysis; they are of course vulnerable to much of the critique directed against neorealism
by constructivists. Other liberals did begin to focus more on the role of ideas after
the Cold War ended. When Francis Fukuyama proclaimed ‘the end of history’ (1989), he
was endorsing the role of ideas and especially the progress of liberal ideas in the world. But
he and other liberals are mostly interested in the concrete advance of liberal, democratic
government in the world. Even if constructivists are sympathetic to several elements of liberal
thinking, their focus is less on the advance of liberal ideas; it is on role of thinking and
ideas in general.
So the historical context (i.e. the end of the Cold War) and the theoretical discussion
between IR scholars (especially among neorealists and liberals) helped set the stage for a
constructivist approach. And constructivism became especially popular among North
American scholars, because that environment was dominated by the neorealist/neoliberal
approaches. In Europe, the International Society approach (see Chapter 5) had already to a
significant extent included the role of ideas and the importance of social interaction
between states in their analysis. In that sense, there was less intellectual space in Europe for
constructivists to fill out.
At the same time, constructivists were inspired by theoretical developments in other
social science disciplines, including philosophy and sociology. In sociology, Anthony
Giddens (1984) proposed the concept of structuration as a way of analysing the relationship
between structures and actors (see web link 6.02). According to Giddens, structures
(i.e. the rules and conditions that guide social action) do not determine what actors do in
any mechanical way, an impression one might get from the neorealist view of how the structure
of anarchy constrains state actors. The relationship between structures and actors
involves intersubjective understanding and meaning. Structures do constrain actors, but
actors can also transform structures by thinking about them and acting on them in new
ways. The notion of structuration therefore leads to a less rigid and more dynamic view of
the relationship between structure and actors. IR constructivists use this as a starting-point
for suggesting a less rigid view of anarchy.
We have noted some recent historical and theoretical developments that help explain the
rise of social constructivism in IR. But constructivism has deeper roots; it is not an entirely
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 163
164 Introduction to International Relations
new approach. It also grows out of an old methodology that can be traced back at least to the
eighteenth-century writings of the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico (Pompa 1982).
According to Vico, the natural world is made by God, but the historical world is made by
Man (Pompa 1982: 26). History is not some kind of unfolding or evolving process that is
external to human affairs. Men and women make their own history. They also make states
which are historical constructs. States are artificial creations and the state system is artificial
too; it is made by men and women and if they want to, they can change it and develop it in
new ways (see web link 6.03).
Immanuel Kant is another forerunner for social constructivism (Hacking 1999: 41). Kant
argued that we can obtain knowledge about the world, but it will always be subjective
knowledge in the sense that it is filtered through human consciousness. Max Weber emphasized
that the social world (i.e. the world of human interaction) is fundamentally different
from the natural world of physical phenomena. Human beings rely on ‘understanding’ of
each other’s actions and assigning ‘meaning’ to them. In order to comprehend human interaction,
we cannot merely describe it in the way we describe physical phenomena, such as a
boulder falling off a cliff; we need a different kind of interpretive understanding, or ‘verstehen’
(Morrison 1995: 273–82). Is the pat of another person’s face a punishment or a caress?
We cannot know until we assign meaning to the act. Weber concluded that ‘subjective
understanding is the specific characteristic of sociological knowledge’ (Weber 1977: 15).
Constructivists rely on such insights to emphasize the importance of ‘meaning’ and ‘understanding’
(Fierke and Jørgensen (eds) 2001).
Constructivism as Social Theory
We can distinguish between theories at different levels of abstraction. Social theory is the
more general theory about the social world, about social action, and about the relationship
between structures and actors. Substantive IR theory is theory about some aspect of international
relations. Constructivism is both a social theory and a number of different substantive
theories of IR; this section is about constructivism as a social theory; the next section is
about constructivist theories of IR.
In social theory, constructivists emphasize the social construction of reality. Human relations,
including international relations, consist of thought and ideas and not essentially of
material conditions or forces. This is the philosophically idealist element of constructivism
which contrasts with the materialist philosophy of much social science positivism (see
Chapter 11). According to constructivist philosophy, the social world is not a given: it is not
something ‘out there’ that exists independent of the thoughts and ideas of the people
involved in it. It is not an external reality whose laws can be discovered by scientific research
and explained by scientific theory as positivists and behaviouralists argue. The social and
political world is not part of nature. There are no natural laws of society or economics or
politics. History is not an evolving external process that is independent of human thought
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 164
Social Constructivism 165
and ideas. That means that sociology or economics or political science or the study of history
cannot be objective ‘sciences’ in the strict positivist sense of the word.
Everything involved in the social world of men and women is made by them. The fact that
it is made by them makes it intelligible to them. The social world is a world of human consciousness:
of thoughts and beliefs, of ideas and concepts, of languages and discourses, of
signs, signals and understandings among human beings, especially groups of human beings,
such as states and nations. The social world is an intersubjective domain: it is meaningful to
people who made it and live in it, and who understand is precisely because they made it and
they are at home in it.
The social world is in part constructed of physical entities. But it is the ideas and beliefs
concerning those entities which are most important: what those entities signify in the minds
of people. The international system of security and defence, for example, consists of territories,
populations, weapons and other physical assets. But it is the ideas and understandings
according to which those assets are conceived, organized and used—e.g. in alliances, armed
forces, etc.—that is most important. The physical element is there, but it is secondary to the
intellectual element which infuses it with meaning, plans it, organizes it and guides it. The
thought that is involved in international security is more important, far more important,
than the physical assets that are involved because those assets have no meaning without the
intellectual component: they are mere things in themselves.
It is helpful to emphasize the contrast between a materialist view held by neorealists (and
neoliberals) and the ideational view held by constructivists. According to the materialist
view, power and national interest are the driving forces in international politics. Power is
ultimately military capability, supported by economic and other resources. National interest
is the self-regarding desire by states for power, security or wealth (Wendt 1999: 92). Power
and interest are seen as ‘material’ factors; they are objective entities in the sense that because
of anarchy states are compelled to be preoccupied with power and interest. In this view,
ideas matter little; they can be used to rationalize actions dictated by material interest. In the
ideational view held by social constructivists ideas always matter. ‘The starting premise is that
the material world is indeterminate and is interpreted within a larger context of meaning.
Social structures have three elements: shared knowledge, material resources, and practices.
First, social structures are defined, in part, by shared understandings, expectations, or knowledge.
These constitute the actors in a situation and the nature of their relationships, whether
cooperative or conflictual. A security dilemma, for example, is a social structure composed of
intersubjective understandings in which states are so distrustful that they make worst-case
assumptions about each other’s intentions, and as a result define their interests in self-help terms.
A security community is a different social structure, one composed of shared knowledge in which
states trust one another to resolve disputes without war. This dependence of social structure on
ideas is the sense in which constructivism has an idealist (or ‘idea-ist’) view of structure.
Wendt (1992: 73)
BOX 6.1 Wendt’s constructivist conception of social structures
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 165
166 Introduction to International Relations
Ideas thus define the meaning of material power’ (Tannenwald 2005: 19). This constructivist
view of ideas is emphasized by Wendt in Box 6.2.
The core ideational element upon which constructivists focus is intersubjective beliefs
(and ideas, conceptions and assumptions) that are widely shared among people. Ideas must
be widely shared to matter; nonetheless they can be held by different groups, such as organizations,
policymakers, social groups or society). ‘Ideas are mental constructs held by individuals,
sets of distinctive beliefs, principles and attitudes that provide broad orientations
for behaviour and policy’ (Tannenwald 2005: 15). There are many different kinds of ideas.
Nina Tannenwald identifies four major types: ‘ideologies or shared belief systems, normative
beliefs, cause-effect beliefs, and policy prescriptions’ (Tannenwald 2005: 15); they are
described in Box 6.3.
Constructivism is an empirical approach to the study of international relations—empirical
in that it focuses on the intersubjective ideas that define international relations. The theory
displays some distinctive research interests and approaches. If the social and political
world consists, at base, of shared beliefs, how does that affect the way we should account for
important international events and episodes? Constructivists, as a rule, cannot subscribe to
mechanical positivist conceptions of causality. That is because the positivists do not probe
the intersubjective content of events and episodes. For example, the well-known billiard
ball image of international is rejected by constructivists because it fails to reveal the thoughts,
ideas, beliefs and so on of the actors involved in international conflicts. Constructivists want
to probe the inside of the billiard balls to arrive at a deeper understanding of such conflicts
(see web links 6.05 and 6.07).
Constructivists generally agree with Max Weber that they need to employ interpretive
understanding (verstehen) in order to analyse social action (Ruggie 1998). But they are not
in agreement about the extent to which it is possible to emulate the scientific ideas of the
natural sciences and produce scientific explanations based on hypotheses, data collection
The claim is not that ideas are more important than power and interest, or that they are
autonomous from power and interest. The claim is rather that power and interest have the effects
they do in virtue of the ideas that make them up. Power and interest explanations presuppose
ideas, and to that extent are not rivals to ideational explanations at all . . . Let me [propose] a rule
of thumb for idealists: when confronted by ostensibly “material” explanations, always inquire into
the discursive conditions which make them work. When Neorealists offer multipolarity as an
explanation for war, inquire into the discursive conditions that constitute the poles as enemies
rather than friends. When Liberals offer economic interdependence as an explanation for peace,
inquire into the discursive conditions that constitute states with identities that care about free
trade and economic growth. When Marxists offer capitalism as an explanation for state forms,
inquire into the discursive conditions that constitute capitalist relations of production. And so on.
Wendt (1999: 135–6)
BOX 6.2 The social constructivist view of ideas
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 166
Social Constructivism 167
and generalization (see Chapter 11). On the one hand, constructivists reject the notion of
objective truth; social scientists cannot discover a ‘final truth’ about the world which is true
across time and place. On the other hand, constructivists do make ‘truth claims about the
subjects they have investigated . . . while admitting that their claims are always contingent
and partial interpretations of a complex world’ (Price and Reus-Smit 1998: 272).
At the same time, it is fair to say that constructivists do not agree entirely on this issue
(Fierke 2001). The view expressed here is closer to what has been called ‘conventional’ constructivism
(Hopf 1998) represented by such scholars as Alexander Wendt (1999), Peter
Katzenstein (1996b), Christian Reus-Smit (1997), John Ruggie (1998), Emmanuel Adler
and Michael Barnett (1998), Ted Hopf (2002), and Martha Finnemore (2003). ‘Critical’ constructivists
are much more sceptical about this position; they argue that ‘truth claims’ are not
possible because there is no neutral ground where we can decide about what is true. What we
call truth is always connected to different, more of less dominant, ways of thinking about the
world. Truth and power cannot be separated; indeed, the main task of critical constructivism
is to unmask that core relationship between truth and power, to criticize those dominant
versions of thinking that claim to be true for all. Critical constructivists include David
Campbell (1998), Jim George (1994), James Der Derian (1987), R. B. J. Walker (1993),
Andrew Linklater (1998) and Ann Tickner (1992). Our presentation of constructivist scholarship
focuses on ‘conventional’ constructivism. Salient aspects of ‘critical’ constructivism,
which we label postmodernism, are discussed in Chapter 11.
Ideologies or shared belief systems are a systematic set of doctrines or beliefs that reflect the
social needs and aspirations of a group, class, culture, or state. Examples include the Protestant
ethic or political ideologies such as liberalism, Marxism, and fascism . . .
Normative (or principled) beliefs are beliefs about right and wrong. They consist of values and
attitudes that specify criteria for distinguishing right from wrong or just from unjust and they imply
associated standards of behaviour, [for example] the role of human rights norms at the end of the
Cold War . . .
Causal beliefs are beliefs about cause-effect, or means-end relationships. They . . . provide
guidelines or strategies for individuals on how to achieve their objectives . . . [for example], Soviet
leaders’ changing beliefs about the efficacy (or more precisely non-efficacy) of the use of force
influenced their decision in 1989 not to use force to keep Eastern Europe under Soviet control.
Finally, policy prescriptions are the specific programmatic ideas that facilitate policymaking by
specifying how to solve particular policy problems. They are at the center of policy debates and
are associated with specific strategies and policy programs.
Tannenwald (2005: 15–16)
BOX 6.3 Four types of ideas
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 167
168 Introduction to International Relations
Constructivist Theories of International Relations
Constructivism was introduced to IR by Nicholas Onuf (1989) who coined the term. It gathered
a larger following among scholars with a series of influential articles and a book by
Alexander Wendt (1987, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999). We begin this brief and selective
overview of constructivist IR-theory with Wendt’s contribution.
The core of Wendt’s argument is the rejection of the neorealist position, according to
which anarchy must necessarily lead to self-help. Whether it does or not cannot be decided
a priori; it depends on the interaction between states. In these processes of interaction the
identities and interests of states are created. For neorealists, identities and interests are
given; states know who they are and what they want before they begin interaction with other
states. For Wendt, it is the very interaction with others that ‘create and instantiate one structure
of identities and interests rather than another; structure has no existence or causal powers
apart from process’ (Wendt 1992: 394). States want to survive and be secure; neorealists
and constructivists agree about that. But what kind of security policy follows from this? Do
states seek to become as powerful as possible or are they content with what they have?
Wendt argues that we can only find out by studying identities and interests as they are
shaped in the interaction between states.
In concrete terms, ‘if the United States and the Soviet Union decide that they are no longer
enemies, “the cold war is over”. It is collective meanings that constitute the structures which
organize our actions. Actors acquire identities—relatively stable, role-specific understanding
and expectations about self—by participating in such collective meaning’ (Wendt 1992:
397). West European states need not start power balancing against each other because the
Cold War is over, four decades of cooperation may have led to a new ‘European identity’ of
cooperation and friendship between them (Wendt 1992: 418) (see web links 6.16 and 6.17).
Wendt’s 1999 book further develops the argument introduced in the earlier articles. His
point of departure is the same as Waltz’s: interaction between states in a system characterised
by anarchy. But anarchy need not lead to self-help; that calls for further study of the
discursive interaction between states in order to discover what specific ‘culture of anarchy’
that has developed between them. Wendt suggests three major ideal types of anarchy:
Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian (1999: 257). In the Hobbesian culture, states view each
other as enemies; the logic of Hobbesian anarchy is ‘war of all against all’. States are adversaries
and war is endemic because violent conflict way of survival. Hobbesian anarchy,
according to Wendt, dominated the states system until the seventeenth century.
In the Lockean culture, states consider each other rivals, but there is also restraint; states
do not seek to eliminate each other, they recognize the other states’ right to exist. Lockean
anarchy has become a characteristic of the modern states’ system after the Peace of
Westphalia in 1648. Finally, in a Kantian culture, states view each other as friends, settle disputes
peacefully and support each other in the case of threat by a third party (Wendt 1999:
299). A Kantian culture has emerged among consolidated liberal democracies since the
Second World War (see web link 6.14).
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 168
Social Constructivism 169
The three different cultures of anarchy can be internalized in different degrees; that is to
say, the way states view each other may be more or less deeply shared. Wendt makes a distinction
between three degrees of ‘cultural internalization’ (Wendt 1999: 254); the first
degree is a relatively weak commitment to shared ideas; the third degree a strong commitment.
We get a three by three table of ‘degrees of cooperation’ and ‘degrees of internalization’
respectively (see Box 6.4).
Wendt drives home the point that constructivism is not merely about ‘adding the role of
ideas’ to existing theories of IR. Material power and state interest are fundamentally formed
by ideas and social interaction. Therefore, states in an anarchic system may each possess
military and other capabilities which can be seen as potentially threatening by other states;
but enmity and arms races are not inevitable outcomes. Social interaction between states can
also lead to more benign and friendly cultures of anarchy.
Wendt’s analysis is systemic; it focuses on interaction between states in the international
system and disregards the role of domestic factors. Martha Finnemore has proposed another
variant of constructivist, systemic analysis in her 1996 book, National Interests in International
Society. Her starting point is the definition of states’ identities and interests. But instead of looking
at the social interaction between states, focus is on the norms of international society
and the way in which they affect state identities and interests. State behaviour is defined by
identity and interest. Identity and interests are defined by international forces, that is, by the
norms of behaviour embedded in international society. The norms of international society
are transmitted to states through international organizations. They shape national policies
by ‘teaching’ states what their interests should be (see web link 6.18).
3rd
2nd
1st
Hobbesian Lockean Kantian
Adapted from Wendt (1999: 254)
BOX 6.4 Cultures of anarchy and degrees of internalization
DEGREE OF INTERNALIZATION
DEGREE OF COOPERATION
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 169
170 Introduction to International Relations
Finnemore’s analysis contains three case-studies: the adoption of science policy bureaucracies
by states after 1955; states’ acceptance of rule-governed norms of warfare; and states
accepting limits to economic sovereignty by allowing redistribution to take priority over
production values. The first case-study argues that the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has taught states how to develop science
bureaucracies. Science policy bureaucracies did not exist in many states prior to the mid-
1950s. At that time UNESCO began a drive to establish them, with considerable success:
they were set up in merely fourteen countries in 1955; by 1975, the number had increased
to nearly ninety. UNESCO successfully propagated the idea that in order to be a ‘modern
civilized’ state, having a science policy bureaucracy was a necessary ingredient.
The second case-study is about how states came to accept rule-governed norms of warfare.
Again, the argument is that an international organization was instrumental in promoting
humanitarian norms in warfare; in this case it is the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC). The ICRC succeeded in prescribing what was ‘appropriate behaviour’ for ‘civilized’
states involved in war. This would appear to be a ‘hard case’ for the constructivist approach,
because the ICRC could push through new norms in an area that neorealists would consider
critical for national interests, namely the right to unconstrained use of force during times of war.
The third and final case-study concerns the acceptance by Third World states of poverty
alleviation as a central norm of economic policy. Until the late 1960s the overriding objective
of economic policy was to increase production by focusing on economic growth. By the
early 1970s welfare improvement through economic redistribution became a principal goal
of economic policy. Finnemore argues that this normative shift was pushed by the World
Bank. The Bank’s president—Robert McNamara—played an essential role; he was convinced
that the bank should actively promote poverty alleviation in developing countries.
Martha Finnemore thus argues that international norms promoted by international
organizations can decisively influence national guidelines by pushing states to adopt these
norms in their national policies. Against neorealism, she argues that the changes brought
forward by the case-studies cannot be explained by pure national interests in powermaximation.
They need to be explained by a constructivist analysis emphasizing the central
role of norms in international society.
Systemic constructivists such as Finnemore and Wendt stress the importance of the
international environment in shaping state identities. Other constructivists put more
The fact that we live in an international society means that what we want and, in some ways, who
we are are shaped by the social norms, rules, understandings, and relationships we have with others.
These social realities are as influential as material realities in determining behaviour. Indeed,
they are what endow material realities with meaning and purpose.
In political terms, it is these social realities that provide us with ends to which power and wealth
can be used.
Finnemore (1996: 128)
BOX 6.5 Martha Finnemore on norms in international society
06-Jackson-Chap06.qxd 30-6-06 4:32 PM Page 170
Social Constructivism 171
emphasis on the domestic environment. One way of moving in this direction is to study how
international norms have dissimilar effects in different states and then speculate about the
domestic factors responsible for such variation. A volume edited by Thomas Risse (1999)
takes on this task in the area of international human rights norms. The authors demonstrate
how regime type, the experience of civil war and the presence of domestic human rights
organizations impinge on on the degree to which states are ready to comply with international
human rights norms (see web link 6.19).
The book edited by Peter Katzenstein, The Culture of National Security. Norms and Identity
in World Politics (1996a) aims to drive home the general constructivist claim that culture,
norms and identity matters, also in the core area of national security. In this context, many
essays put special emphasis on domestic norms. Alastair Johnston, for example, takes up the
case up Maoist China in order to see ‘how far ideational arguments can go in accounting for
realpolitik behaviour’ (Johnston 1996: 217). He identifies a specific ‘hard realpolitik’ strategic
culture in the Chinese tradition that informs and shapes Chinese security policies. The
argument is that Chinese decision-makers have ‘internalized this strategic culture’ and that
it ‘has persisted across vastly different interstate systems, regime types, levels of technology,
and types of threat’ (Johnston 1996: 217). In other words, neorealist accounts of Chinese
behaviour are incomplete because they fail to include such a notion of an idea-based
strategic culture; and precisely because its presence can be show across different systems it
is clear that ‘anarchy’ is not sufficient to account for the Chinese position.
Peter Katzenstein has written a book on Japan which further develops a constructivist argument
about the role of domestic norms in the area of national security (Katzenstein 1996b).
Systemic theorizing is inadequate, says Katzenstein, because it does not sufficiently appreciate
how the internal make-up of states affects their behaviour in the international system. The
emphasis in his analysis is on the domestic normative structure and how it influences state
identity, interests and policy. A major puzzle addressed is the shift from a militaristic foreign
policy before 1945 to a pacifist foreign policy after the world war. The analysis explains why
there was a broad consensus favouring a militaristic foreign policy before the war and how the
norms on which that consensus was based became profoundly contested as a result of the war.
The military’s position within the government was severely weakened; furthermore, the new
Today’s problem is no longer that of E.H. Carr, one of avoiding the sterility of realism and the
naïveté of liberalism. Our choice is more complex. We can remain intellectually riveted on a realist
world of states balancing power in a multipolar system. We can focus analytically with liberal
institutionalists on
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Thoughts! Margith Strand
Margith Strand/WWC/February 5, 2010
The way to the constructivistic thought process is to acknowledge that there are ways to deliver the ...
Why is constructivsm being used here in your case?
The difference between constructivism and constructivism is....
The difference between you and the student is....
The difference in the budget between you and the student is.... [Please acklowedge this part and have the folks at Upland and Anaheim respond to this]
To infuse the enthusiasm into the Faculty and Staff, we must first constructively design the needed path for the institution. Use the material gained in the design portion
to constructively differentiate between the following features of .....(Upland) and (Anaheim).
1. "Class" reinforcement of Structure in subject matter and context
2. Value and commitment to Structure
3. Commitment to Safety and Validation of Self in the classroom
4. Meaning and delivery of ....
The meaning of structure in your life as an Instructor is...I feel that ...this is a valid option also.
The meaning of structure in your experience as an Instructor
Instructor means....
"Instructor" means to students at WWC
The way to the constructivistic thought process is to acknowledge that there are ways to deliver the ...
Why is constructivsm being used here in your case?
The difference between constructivism and constructivism is....
The difference between you and the student is....
The difference in the budget between you and the student is.... [Please acklowedge this part and have the folks at Upland and Anaheim respond to this]
To infuse the enthusiasm into the Faculty and Staff, we must first constructively design the needed path for the institution. Use the material gained in the design portion
to constructively differentiate between the following features of .....(Upland) and (Anaheim).
1. "Class" reinforcement of Structure in subject matter and context
2. Value and commitment to Structure
3. Commitment to Safety and Validation of Self in the classroom
4. Meaning and delivery of ....
The meaning of structure in your life as an Instructor is...I feel that ...this is a valid option also.
The meaning of structure in your experience as an Instructor
Instructor means....
"Instructor" means to students at WWC
Margith A. Strand's References
Margith A. Strand/ December 27, 2009
References
Bartecchi, D. (2007) "The History of Competency" as a Tool to Control Native American Lands." Pine Ridge Project http://villageearth.org/pages/projects/pine_ridge/pineridgeblog/2007/02/history-of-competency-as-a-tool-to.html. Retrieved 2008-11-06
Case, D.S. Voluck DA (2002). Alaska Natives and American Laws (2nd ed.) Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Press. pp.104-105 ISBN 9781889963082
Constitution of the United States of America: Congress of the United States of America, 1st Session, 1776.
Federal Communication Commission: Public Notices: DA 09-2093, DA 09-2122, DA 09-2369. [Retrieved from www.fcc.gov site on 2009-12-09]
Fitzpatrick, E. History's Memory: Writing America's Past, 1880-1980 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), ISBN 067401605X, p. 133
Haas, A.M. Retrieved 2009-12-26:http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/Haas/index.htm
Henslin, Social Problems (2005) 5th ed. New York, New York, Prentice Hall.
Native American Language Act of 1990 PL (101-477) Retrieved 2009-11-02
Portman, T.A.A.(2003) Journal of Rural Community Psychology. Vol.E6 no.1 ppgs.
Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country: Department of the Interior (2005)
Strand, M. (2009) Concepts derived as part and conclusion from the preparation of this Comprehensive Assessment.
Weiner, Mark (2006) Americans without Law: The Racial Boundaries of Citizenship, New York: New York, University Press.
References
Bartecchi, D. (2007) "The History of Competency" as a Tool to Control Native American Lands." Pine Ridge Project http://villageearth.org/pages/projects/pine_ridge/pineridgeblog/2007/02/history-of-competency-as-a-tool-to.html. Retrieved 2008-11-06
Case, D.S. Voluck DA (2002). Alaska Natives and American Laws (2nd ed.) Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Press. pp.104-105 ISBN 9781889963082
Constitution of the United States of America: Congress of the United States of America, 1st Session, 1776.
Federal Communication Commission: Public Notices: DA 09-2093, DA 09-2122, DA 09-2369. [Retrieved from www.fcc.gov site on 2009-12-09]
Fitzpatrick, E. History's Memory: Writing America's Past, 1880-1980 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), ISBN 067401605X, p. 133
Haas, A.M. Retrieved 2009-12-26:http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/Haas/index.htm
Henslin, Social Problems (2005) 5th ed. New York, New York, Prentice Hall.
Native American Language Act of 1990 PL (101-477) Retrieved 2009-11-02
Portman, T.A.A.(2003) Journal of Rural Community Psychology. Vol.E6 no.1 ppgs.
Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country: Department of the Interior (2005)
Strand, M. (2009) Concepts derived as part and conclusion from the preparation of this Comprehensive Assessment.
Weiner, Mark (2006) Americans without Law: The Racial Boundaries of Citizenship, New York: New York, University Press.
Margith Strand
Structuration Theory/Adaptive - [Margith Strand 2008] BUILD
Adaptive Structuration Theory
role of information technologies in organization change
My Idea: Dissertation work on Structuration theory and the missing links between Distance Education (also consider the reinforcing factors which make the field stronger between the two) and Higher Education. Factors of change, theoretical evolution of processes, cycles of change dynamics.
My comments continue:
The factors of change in the aspects of Higher Education and the factors of Distance Learning and Distance Education. The differentiation in the loss of integrity? The differentiation in the factors of the change dynamics in the components of learning and distribution in the evolution of the information and informational analysis of the subject matter and subject items involved in the assimilation and interpretation of the learning process and teaching processes.
Technology as the medium/media of the learning process? Technology as the media/medium of the process - parameters of the process and the limitations and the delimitations of the process of utilizing the technology.
Instructor ability and the limitations in the dynamics of the teaching processes of the individual and the ability to outreach into the audience of the student field.
The ability to backreach and receive the messages/messaging from the students to read what the student field is feeding back to the Instructor.
The perceivability of the Instructor to read what the student field is intending for the teaching mechanism to relay and distribute to the population of the student field so that the contexts and deliverables are assigned in the achievable order for best learning practices.
Logic-related sequential development of the information may be perceived by an informational analysis of the infrastructure of the teaching and learning environment by an expert so that the best practice methodology can be of uniform nature and imparted to the student field in a more general approach. Variations among institutions?
University of Twente/November 7, 2009/Google Search origination
History and Orientation
Adaptive Structuration Theory is based on Anthony Giddens' structuration theory. This theory is formulated as “the production and reproduction of the social systems through members’ use of rules and resources in interaction”. DeSanctis and Poole adapted Giddens' theory to study the interaction of groups and organizations with information technology, and called it Adaptive Structuration Theory. AST criticizes the technocentric view of technology use and emphasizes the social aspects. Groups and organizations using information technology for their work dynamically create perceptions about the role and utility of the technology, and how it can be applied to their activities. These perceptions can vary widely across groups. These perceptions influence the way how technology is used and hence mediate its impact on group outcomes.
Core Assumptions and Statements
AST is a viable approach for studying the role of advanced information technologies in organization change. AST examines the change process from two vantage points 1) the types of structures that are provided by the advanced technologies and 2) the structures that actually emerge in human action as people interact with these technologies.
1. Structuration Theory, deals with the evolution and development of groups and organizations.
2. The theory views groups or organizations as systems with ("observable patterns of relationships and communicative interaction among people creating structures").
3. Systems are produced by actions of people creating structures (sets of rules and resources).
4. Systems and structures exist in a dual relationship with each others such that they tend to produce and reproduce each other in an ongoing cycle. This is referred to as the "structuration process."
5. The structuration process can be very stable, or it can change substantial over time.
6. It is useful to consider groups and organizations from a structuration perspective because doing so: (a) helps one understand the relative balance in the deterministic influences and willful choices that reveal groups' unique identities; (b) makes clearer than other perspectives the evolutionary character of groups and organizations; and (c) suggests possibilities for how members may be able to exercise more influence than they otherwise think themselves capable of.
Conceptual Model
See Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5, p. 132.
Favorite Methods
To be added.
Scope and Application
The AST could be used to analyze the advent of various innovations such as the printed press, electricity, telegraph, mass transpirations, radio, telephone, TV, the Internet, etc., and show how the structures of these innovations penetrated the respective societies, influencing them, and how the social structures of those societies in turn influenced and modified innovations' original intent. In conclusion AST's appropriation process might be a good model to analyze the utilization and penetration of new media technologies in our society.
Example
In this example two groups are compared that used the Group Decision Support System (GDSS) for prioritizing projects for organizational investment. A written transcript and an audio tape produced qualitative summary. Also quantitative results were obtained which led to the following conclusions. Both groups had similar inputs to group interaction. The sources of structure and the group’s internal system were essentially the same in each group, except that group 1 had a member who was forceful in attempting to direct others and was often met with resistance. Group 2 spent much more time than group 1 defining the meaning of the system features and how they should be used relative to the task at hand; also group 2 had relatively few disagreements about appropriation or unfaithful appropriation. In group 2 conflict was confined to critical work on differences rather than the escalated argument present in group 1. This example shows how the Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) can help to understand advanced technology in group interactions. Although the same technology was introduced to both groups, the effects were not consistent due to differences in each group’s appropriation moves.
References
Key publications
Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5, 121-147
Maznevski, M. L. & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness. Organization Science. 11, 473-492
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group Decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1986). A structurational approach to theory-building in group decision-making research. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.),
Communication and group decision making (pp. 2437-264). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Seibold, D. (1998). Jurors¹ intuitive rules for deliberation: a structural approach to communication in jury decision making. Communication Monographs, 65, p. 287-307.
Anderson, R. & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of Communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin¹s Press, not in.
Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, p. 229-230.
Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, p. 209-210
Adaptive Structuration Theory
role of information technologies in organization change
My Idea: Dissertation work on Structuration theory and the missing links between Distance Education (also consider the reinforcing factors which make the field stronger between the two) and Higher Education. Factors of change, theoretical evolution of processes, cycles of change dynamics.
My comments continue:
The factors of change in the aspects of Higher Education and the factors of Distance Learning and Distance Education. The differentiation in the loss of integrity? The differentiation in the factors of the change dynamics in the components of learning and distribution in the evolution of the information and informational analysis of the subject matter and subject items involved in the assimilation and interpretation of the learning process and teaching processes.
Technology as the medium/media of the learning process? Technology as the media/medium of the process - parameters of the process and the limitations and the delimitations of the process of utilizing the technology.
Instructor ability and the limitations in the dynamics of the teaching processes of the individual and the ability to outreach into the audience of the student field.
The ability to backreach and receive the messages/messaging from the students to read what the student field is feeding back to the Instructor.
The perceivability of the Instructor to read what the student field is intending for the teaching mechanism to relay and distribute to the population of the student field so that the contexts and deliverables are assigned in the achievable order for best learning practices.
Logic-related sequential development of the information may be perceived by an informational analysis of the infrastructure of the teaching and learning environment by an expert so that the best practice methodology can be of uniform nature and imparted to the student field in a more general approach. Variations among institutions?
University of Twente/November 7, 2009/Google Search origination
History and Orientation
Adaptive Structuration Theory is based on Anthony Giddens' structuration theory. This theory is formulated as “the production and reproduction of the social systems through members’ use of rules and resources in interaction”. DeSanctis and Poole adapted Giddens' theory to study the interaction of groups and organizations with information technology, and called it Adaptive Structuration Theory. AST criticizes the technocentric view of technology use and emphasizes the social aspects. Groups and organizations using information technology for their work dynamically create perceptions about the role and utility of the technology, and how it can be applied to their activities. These perceptions can vary widely across groups. These perceptions influence the way how technology is used and hence mediate its impact on group outcomes.
Core Assumptions and Statements
AST is a viable approach for studying the role of advanced information technologies in organization change. AST examines the change process from two vantage points 1) the types of structures that are provided by the advanced technologies and 2) the structures that actually emerge in human action as people interact with these technologies.
1. Structuration Theory, deals with the evolution and development of groups and organizations.
2. The theory views groups or organizations as systems with ("observable patterns of relationships and communicative interaction among people creating structures").
3. Systems are produced by actions of people creating structures (sets of rules and resources).
4. Systems and structures exist in a dual relationship with each others such that they tend to produce and reproduce each other in an ongoing cycle. This is referred to as the "structuration process."
5. The structuration process can be very stable, or it can change substantial over time.
6. It is useful to consider groups and organizations from a structuration perspective because doing so: (a) helps one understand the relative balance in the deterministic influences and willful choices that reveal groups' unique identities; (b) makes clearer than other perspectives the evolutionary character of groups and organizations; and (c) suggests possibilities for how members may be able to exercise more influence than they otherwise think themselves capable of.
Conceptual Model
See Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5, p. 132.
Favorite Methods
To be added.
Scope and Application
The AST could be used to analyze the advent of various innovations such as the printed press, electricity, telegraph, mass transpirations, radio, telephone, TV, the Internet, etc., and show how the structures of these innovations penetrated the respective societies, influencing them, and how the social structures of those societies in turn influenced and modified innovations' original intent. In conclusion AST's appropriation process might be a good model to analyze the utilization and penetration of new media technologies in our society.
Example
In this example two groups are compared that used the Group Decision Support System (GDSS) for prioritizing projects for organizational investment. A written transcript and an audio tape produced qualitative summary. Also quantitative results were obtained which led to the following conclusions. Both groups had similar inputs to group interaction. The sources of structure and the group’s internal system were essentially the same in each group, except that group 1 had a member who was forceful in attempting to direct others and was often met with resistance. Group 2 spent much more time than group 1 defining the meaning of the system features and how they should be used relative to the task at hand; also group 2 had relatively few disagreements about appropriation or unfaithful appropriation. In group 2 conflict was confined to critical work on differences rather than the escalated argument present in group 1. This example shows how the Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) can help to understand advanced technology in group interactions. Although the same technology was introduced to both groups, the effects were not consistent due to differences in each group’s appropriation moves.
References
Key publications
Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5, 121-147
Maznevski, M. L. & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness. Organization Science. 11, 473-492
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group Decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1986). A structurational approach to theory-building in group decision-making research. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.),
Communication and group decision making (pp. 2437-264). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Seibold, D. (1998). Jurors¹ intuitive rules for deliberation: a structural approach to communication in jury decision making. Communication Monographs, 65, p. 287-307.
Anderson, R. & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of Communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin¹s Press, not in.
Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, p. 229-230.
Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, p. 209-210
Margith Strand/ Grounded Theory/E-College
The Grounded Theory Course/ ELC GT 500
Module Form Platform: E-College Latest Version
Sections: 5/ Tabular
Cost: TBD
(2/10/2010)
Modulars: Office Hours/Discussion Threads/Input/Output/Library Access/Research Capability/Lecturer Access (Professors Model) Oxford, Cambridge/For Fielding Only (U.S.A.)
Basic Theory
Historical Development
Applicational Constructions
Constructivistic Approach and Grounded Theory
Social Constructivism/
[2/10/2010]
Select the tabular sections:
Due Dates: Week 1: First Draft of Basic Theory
Week 2: Historical Development/Revision (MA)
Week 3: Applicational Constructions (MA & )
Week 4: Constructivistic Approach and G.T. (MA) March 15, 2010
Revision Dates: Due One Week After March 30, 2010.
Week One Additional: Social Constructivistic Theory in relation to Grounded Theory.
Module Form Platform: E-College Latest Version
Sections: 5/ Tabular
Cost: TBD
(2/10/2010)
Modulars: Office Hours/Discussion Threads/Input/Output/Library Access/Research Capability/Lecturer Access (Professors Model) Oxford, Cambridge/For Fielding Only (U.S.A.)
Basic Theory
Historical Development
Applicational Constructions
Constructivistic Approach and Grounded Theory
Social Constructivism/
[2/10/2010]
Select the tabular sections:
Due Dates: Week 1: First Draft of Basic Theory
Week 2: Historical Development/Revision (MA)
Week 3: Applicational Constructions (MA & )
Week 4: Constructivistic Approach and G.T. (MA) March 15, 2010
Revision Dates: Due One Week After March 30, 2010.
Week One Additional: Social Constructivistic Theory in relation to Grounded Theory.
Mine:)
Christianity is to the individual as I would know myself for what I am and can accomplish.
We are in the times of the transition and can accomodate the changes which we bring upon ourselves.
The challenge lies in the expressions which we calibrate our lives by and can be measured in the way in which we reward ourselves.
The reasoning lies in the way in which reach our goals and objectives. Look at the words "objectivity" and "objective."
Perception is to you and I....
We are in the bowl of life....
How can I love thee...
We see the same things...
And yet, I wish you were mine...
I am yours forever more....
Perception is in the frame of reference
To realize that dream is to know
And yet, to differ and differentiate..
The standards of which is you..
And your expressions of your intent
And sense of will...
This is from me to you...
We are in the times of the transition and can accomodate the changes which we bring upon ourselves.
The challenge lies in the expressions which we calibrate our lives by and can be measured in the way in which we reward ourselves.
The reasoning lies in the way in which reach our goals and objectives. Look at the words "objectivity" and "objective."
Perception is to you and I....
We are in the bowl of life....
How can I love thee...
We see the same things...
And yet, I wish you were mine...
I am yours forever more....
Perception is in the frame of reference
To realize that dream is to know
And yet, to differ and differentiate..
The standards of which is you..
And your expressions of your intent
And sense of will...
This is from me to you...
AST/ Adaptive Structuration/ Margith Strand
The discoveries from the work above (completed Knowledge Area) will support my Dissertation work comprised of information in the following areas: Adaptive Structuration Theory, Social Network Theory, and their relevancy as integrated models in Distance Education. Below are some of my ideas as formulated for the purpose of specifying the ideas MAbehind the generation of the Dissertation; in that the key principles of discovery are going to be elucidated as a process of completion of the Knowledge Area. The informational analysis performed as a part of the completion of this KA will be constructiveMA in the Dissertation support context within the realm of Distance Education.
Social Network theory's nodes and the diagrammatic representation can be used to model the Distance Education format of the infrastructure and the deliverable pathways which are integral to the functioning of the teaching and learning patterns. In my mind, the Social Network should be representative of an integral methodology of the necessary functioningMA of the Social Work world as well as any other social network relevant world.
Social Network can be integrated with the Structuration or the Adaptive Structuration Theory in that the physical representation is a modelling of the characteristics and the needed patterning of the delivarables of the mechanism of the Distance Education world; not only the infrastructure of the Teaching and Learning modelling of the interactions between the students and the Instructors in the intricacies, but the network modelling of the Distance Education world in that the interactions between the cognitive and methodological patterning which occurs in the construction of the teaching from the Instructors can be shown as a part of the Social Network diagramming.
The Abstract and Concrete deliverables in the modelling of the Teaching and Learning methodologies have been discussed in my Blog (www.margithstrand.blogspot.com) deliverables and I am going to apply some MA of these concepts into the Social Network and Adaptive Structuration Theoretical approach in my Dissertation; with support basis from the theories of Reductionism and Social Atomism.
Adaptive Structuration involves the basics of Structuration Theory with the addition of the technological constraints and boundaries which are inherent in the presence of non-cognitive techniques. The concepts and theoretical consideration of Adaptive Structuration Theory will be analyzed within the context of the key principles as mentioned in the set of interrogatives shown above (listed in the Depth section).
I believe that the Distance Education world is theory-based and the ground level classroom instructions are interaction based on the cognitive level of visual and physical interaction. The theory-based approach in the Distance Education world is one of alignment with the recognition and assimilation of concepts and application, utilization of the appropriate theories in that the methodological format which is used in the Distance Learning classroom is one that captures the student's attention to the point of allowing the student to enhance her or his learning format, which is a personal method.
The basic format of my Dissertation: Theory (Structuration and Adaptive Structuration Theories), Utilization of theory (Descriptive and Compartive analysis of Distance Teaching and Learning vs. Ground Capacitance Levels), Application with data analytical methods from Course Structure comparision and information derived from course/class data; Methodological AnalysisMA (establishment of nodal format and activity); Group Theoretical (Educational) comparisons of the Distance Educational and Ground Level format; Layering of Activity Coefficients established/derived from the Social Network Nodal Information;
The work from the Knowledge Area will support my quest of the Dissertation in that the mobile learning perspective can be integrated into the informational analysis work of the final report of the academic process at the University. In that the context of mobility in information relates to the method of presentation and assimilation as evolved through the generation of the cognitive ability of the Instructor and not so much as that of the technology. The principlesMA and discourse topics as discussed in this Knowledge Area Contract are intended for the purpose of elucidating the theoretical, topical items in the applications of the teaching and learning process and fields of informational presentation. Mobile learning is an area which involves usability and the logistical information garnered from the completion of this Knowledge Area should generate the theoretical background for the Dissertation.
Social Network theory's nodes and the diagrammatic representation can be used to model the Distance Education format of the infrastructure and the deliverable pathways which are integral to the functioning of the teaching and learning patterns. In my mind, the Social Network should be representative of an integral methodology of the necessary functioningMA of the Social Work world as well as any other social network relevant world.
Social Network can be integrated with the Structuration or the Adaptive Structuration Theory in that the physical representation is a modelling of the characteristics and the needed patterning of the delivarables of the mechanism of the Distance Education world; not only the infrastructure of the Teaching and Learning modelling of the interactions between the students and the Instructors in the intricacies, but the network modelling of the Distance Education world in that the interactions between the cognitive and methodological patterning which occurs in the construction of the teaching from the Instructors can be shown as a part of the Social Network diagramming.
The Abstract and Concrete deliverables in the modelling of the Teaching and Learning methodologies have been discussed in my Blog (www.margithstrand.blogspot.com) deliverables and I am going to apply some MA of these concepts into the Social Network and Adaptive Structuration Theoretical approach in my Dissertation; with support basis from the theories of Reductionism and Social Atomism.
Adaptive Structuration involves the basics of Structuration Theory with the addition of the technological constraints and boundaries which are inherent in the presence of non-cognitive techniques. The concepts and theoretical consideration of Adaptive Structuration Theory will be analyzed within the context of the key principles as mentioned in the set of interrogatives shown above (listed in the Depth section).
I believe that the Distance Education world is theory-based and the ground level classroom instructions are interaction based on the cognitive level of visual and physical interaction. The theory-based approach in the Distance Education world is one of alignment with the recognition and assimilation of concepts and application, utilization of the appropriate theories in that the methodological format which is used in the Distance Learning classroom is one that captures the student's attention to the point of allowing the student to enhance her or his learning format, which is a personal method.
The basic format of my Dissertation: Theory (Structuration and Adaptive Structuration Theories), Utilization of theory (Descriptive and Compartive analysis of Distance Teaching and Learning vs. Ground Capacitance Levels), Application with data analytical methods from Course Structure comparision and information derived from course/class data; Methodological AnalysisMA (establishment of nodal format and activity); Group Theoretical (Educational) comparisons of the Distance Educational and Ground Level format; Layering of Activity Coefficients established/derived from the Social Network Nodal Information;
The work from the Knowledge Area will support my quest of the Dissertation in that the mobile learning perspective can be integrated into the informational analysis work of the final report of the academic process at the University. In that the context of mobility in information relates to the method of presentation and assimilation as evolved through the generation of the cognitive ability of the Instructor and not so much as that of the technology. The principlesMA and discourse topics as discussed in this Knowledge Area Contract are intended for the purpose of elucidating the theoretical, topical items in the applications of the teaching and learning process and fields of informational presentation. Mobile learning is an area which involves usability and the logistical information garnered from the completion of this Knowledge Area should generate the theoretical background for the Dissertation.
Mine...oh...Mine! Margith Strand/ Higher Educationist
Social Network theory's nodes and the diagrammatic representation can be used to model the Distance Education format of the infrastructure and the deliverable pathways which are integral to the functioning of the teaching and learning patterns. In my mind, the Social Network should be representative of an integral methodology of the necessary functioning of the Social Work world as well as any other social network relevant world.
Margith A. Strand
Ideas on Dissertation/ January 10, 2010
Adaptive Structuration Theory
Structuration Theory
Social Network Theory
Cognitive Theoretical Approach
Symbolic Interactionism
Functionalism
Distance Education
Distance Learning
Distance Teaching
Ground Teaching
Ground Teaching Capacitance
Social Network can be integrated with the Structuration or the Adaptive Structuration Theory in that the physical representation is a modelling of the characteristics and the needed patterning of the delivarables of the mechanism of the Distance Education world; not only the infrastructure of the Teaching and Learning modelling of the interactions between the students and the Instructors in the intricacies, but the network modelling of the Distance Education world in that the interactions between the cognitive and methodological patterning which occurs in the construction of the teaching from the Instructors can be shown as a part of the Social Network diagramming.
The Abstract and Concrete deliverables in the modelling of the Teaching and Learning methodologies have been discussed in my Blog deliverables and I am going to apply some of these concepts into the Social Network and Adaptive Structuration Theoretical approach of my DIssertation.
Adaptive Structuration involves the basics of Structuration Theory with the addition of the technological constraints and boundaries which are inherent in the presence of non-cognitive techniques.
In my Dissertation, I wish to roughly approach the limitations and extensions of the Distance Educational world compared to that of the traditional Higher Educational platform, which is the ground approach of the classroom instruction. These works will be done with the theoretical approach in that the theories which are appropriate for the descriptive background and integration of the teaching and learning methodologies with the comparative analysis of the Distance Education context.
I believe that the Distance Education world is theory-based and the ground level classroom instructions are interaction based on the cognitive level of visual and physical interaction. The theory-based approach in the Distance Education world is one of alignment with the recognition and assimilation of concepts and application, utilization of the appropriate theories in that the methodological format which is used in the Distance Learning classroom is one that captures the student's attention to the point of allowing the student to enhance her or his learning format, which is a personal method.
The basic format of my Dissertation: Theory (Structuration and Adaptive Structuration Theories), Utilization of theory (Descriptive and Compartive analysis of Distance Teaching and Learning vs. Ground Capacitance Levels), Application with data analytical methods from Course Structure comparision and information derived from course/class data; Methodological Analysis (establishment of nodal format and activity); Group Theoretical (Educational) comparisons of the Distance Educational and Ground Level format; Layering of Activity Coefficients established/derived from the Social Network Nodal Information;
Margith A. Strand
Ideas on Dissertation/ January 10, 2010
Adaptive Structuration Theory
Structuration Theory
Social Network Theory
Cognitive Theoretical Approach
Symbolic Interactionism
Functionalism
Distance Education
Distance Learning
Distance Teaching
Ground Teaching
Ground Teaching Capacitance
Social Network can be integrated with the Structuration or the Adaptive Structuration Theory in that the physical representation is a modelling of the characteristics and the needed patterning of the delivarables of the mechanism of the Distance Education world; not only the infrastructure of the Teaching and Learning modelling of the interactions between the students and the Instructors in the intricacies, but the network modelling of the Distance Education world in that the interactions between the cognitive and methodological patterning which occurs in the construction of the teaching from the Instructors can be shown as a part of the Social Network diagramming.
The Abstract and Concrete deliverables in the modelling of the Teaching and Learning methodologies have been discussed in my Blog deliverables and I am going to apply some of these concepts into the Social Network and Adaptive Structuration Theoretical approach of my DIssertation.
Adaptive Structuration involves the basics of Structuration Theory with the addition of the technological constraints and boundaries which are inherent in the presence of non-cognitive techniques.
In my Dissertation, I wish to roughly approach the limitations and extensions of the Distance Educational world compared to that of the traditional Higher Educational platform, which is the ground approach of the classroom instruction. These works will be done with the theoretical approach in that the theories which are appropriate for the descriptive background and integration of the teaching and learning methodologies with the comparative analysis of the Distance Education context.
I believe that the Distance Education world is theory-based and the ground level classroom instructions are interaction based on the cognitive level of visual and physical interaction. The theory-based approach in the Distance Education world is one of alignment with the recognition and assimilation of concepts and application, utilization of the appropriate theories in that the methodological format which is used in the Distance Learning classroom is one that captures the student's attention to the point of allowing the student to enhance her or his learning format, which is a personal method.
The basic format of my Dissertation: Theory (Structuration and Adaptive Structuration Theories), Utilization of theory (Descriptive and Compartive analysis of Distance Teaching and Learning vs. Ground Capacitance Levels), Application with data analytical methods from Course Structure comparision and information derived from course/class data; Methodological Analysis (establishment of nodal format and activity); Group Theoretical (Educational) comparisons of the Distance Educational and Ground Level format; Layering of Activity Coefficients established/derived from the Social Network Nodal Information;
Ideas for me..original research:) Margith Strand
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Structuration Theory/Adaptive - [Margith Strand 2008] BUILD
Adaptive Structuration Theory
role of information technologies in organization change
My Idea: Dissertation work on Structuration theory and the missing links between Distance Education (also consider the reinforcing factors which make the field stronger between the two) and Higher Education. Factors of change, theoretical evolution of processes, cycles of change dynamics.
University of Twente/November 7, 2009/Google Search origination
History and Orientation
Adaptive Structuration Theory is based on Anthony Giddens' structuration theory. This theory is formulated as “the production and reproduction of the social systems through members’ use of rules and resources in interaction”. DeSanctis and Poole adapted Giddens' theory to study the interaction of groups and organizations with information technology, and called it Adaptive Structuration Theory. AST criticizes the technocentric view of technology use and emphasizes the social aspects. Groups and organizations using information technology for their work dynamically create perceptions about the role and utility of the technology, and how it can be applied to their activities. These perceptions can vary widely across groups. These perceptions influence the way how technology is used and hence mediate its impact on group outcomes.
Core Assumptions and Statements
AST is a viable approach for studying the role of advanced information technologies in organization change. AST examines the change process from two vantage points 1) the types of structures that are provided by the advanced technologies and 2) the structures that actually emerge in human action as people interact with these technologies.
1. Structuration Theory, deals with the evolution and development of groups and organizations.
2. The theory views groups or organizations as systems with ("observable patterns of relationships and communicative interaction among people creating structures").
3. Systems are produced by actions of people creating structures (sets of rules and resources).
4. Systems and structures exist in a dual relationship with each others such that they tend to produce and reproduce each other in an ongoing cycle. This is referred to as the "structuration process."
5. The structuration process can be very stable, or it can change substantial over time.
6. It is useful to consider groups and organizations from a structuration perspective because doing so: (a) helps one understand the relative balance in the deterministic influences and willful choices that reveal groups' unique identities; (b) makes clearer than other perspectives the evolutionary character of groups and organizations; and (c) suggests possibilities for how members may be able to exercise more influence than they otherwise think themselves capable of.
Conceptual Model
See Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5, p. 132.
Favorite Methods
To be added.
Scope and Application
The AST could be used to analyze the advent of various innovations such as the printed press, electricity, telegraph, mass transpirations, radio, telephone, TV, the Internet, etc., and show how the structures of these innovations penetrated the respective societies, influencing them, and how the social structures of those societies in turn influenced and modified innovations' original intent. In conclusion AST's appropriation process might be a good model to analyze the utilization and penetration of new media technologies in our society.
Example
In this example two groups are compared that used the Group Decision Support System (GDSS) for prioritizing projects for organizational investment. A written transcript and an audio tape produced qualitative summary. Also quantitative results were obtained which led to the following conclusions. Both groups had similar inputs to group interaction. The sources of structure and the group’s internal system were essentially the same in each group, except that group 1 had a member who was forceful in attempting to direct others and was often met with resistance. Group 2 spent much more time than group 1 defining the meaning of the system features and how they should be used relative to the task at hand; also group 2 had relatively few disagreements about appropriation or unfaithful appropriation. In group 2 conflict was confined to critical work on differences rather than the escalated argument present in group 1. This example shows how the Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) can help to understand advanced technology in group interactions. Although the same technology was introduced to both groups, the effects were not consistent due to differences in each group’s appropriation moves.
References
Key publications
Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5, 121-147
Maznevski, M. L. & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness. Organization Science. 11, 473-492
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group Decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1986). A structurational approach to theory-building in group decision-making research. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.),
Communication and group decision making (pp. 2437-264). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Seibold, D. (1998). Jurors¹ intuitive rules for deliberation: a structural approach to communication in jury decision making. Communication Monographs, 65, p. 287-307.
Anderson, R. & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of Communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin¹s Press, not in.
Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, p. 229-230.
Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory
Structuration Theory/Adaptive - [Margith Strand 2008] BUILD
Adaptive Structuration Theory
role of information technologies in organization change
My Idea: Dissertation work on Structuration theory and the missing links between Distance Education (also consider the reinforcing factors which make the field stronger between the two) and Higher Education. Factors of change, theoretical evolution of processes, cycles of change dynamics.
University of Twente/November 7, 2009/Google Search origination
History and Orientation
Adaptive Structuration Theory is based on Anthony Giddens' structuration theory. This theory is formulated as “the production and reproduction of the social systems through members’ use of rules and resources in interaction”. DeSanctis and Poole adapted Giddens' theory to study the interaction of groups and organizations with information technology, and called it Adaptive Structuration Theory. AST criticizes the technocentric view of technology use and emphasizes the social aspects. Groups and organizations using information technology for their work dynamically create perceptions about the role and utility of the technology, and how it can be applied to their activities. These perceptions can vary widely across groups. These perceptions influence the way how technology is used and hence mediate its impact on group outcomes.
Core Assumptions and Statements
AST is a viable approach for studying the role of advanced information technologies in organization change. AST examines the change process from two vantage points 1) the types of structures that are provided by the advanced technologies and 2) the structures that actually emerge in human action as people interact with these technologies.
1. Structuration Theory, deals with the evolution and development of groups and organizations.
2. The theory views groups or organizations as systems with ("observable patterns of relationships and communicative interaction among people creating structures").
3. Systems are produced by actions of people creating structures (sets of rules and resources).
4. Systems and structures exist in a dual relationship with each others such that they tend to produce and reproduce each other in an ongoing cycle. This is referred to as the "structuration process."
5. The structuration process can be very stable, or it can change substantial over time.
6. It is useful to consider groups and organizations from a structuration perspective because doing so: (a) helps one understand the relative balance in the deterministic influences and willful choices that reveal groups' unique identities; (b) makes clearer than other perspectives the evolutionary character of groups and organizations; and (c) suggests possibilities for how members may be able to exercise more influence than they otherwise think themselves capable of.
Conceptual Model
See Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5, p. 132.
Favorite Methods
To be added.
Scope and Application
The AST could be used to analyze the advent of various innovations such as the printed press, electricity, telegraph, mass transpirations, radio, telephone, TV, the Internet, etc., and show how the structures of these innovations penetrated the respective societies, influencing them, and how the social structures of those societies in turn influenced and modified innovations' original intent. In conclusion AST's appropriation process might be a good model to analyze the utilization and penetration of new media technologies in our society.
Example
In this example two groups are compared that used the Group Decision Support System (GDSS) for prioritizing projects for organizational investment. A written transcript and an audio tape produced qualitative summary. Also quantitative results were obtained which led to the following conclusions. Both groups had similar inputs to group interaction. The sources of structure and the group’s internal system were essentially the same in each group, except that group 1 had a member who was forceful in attempting to direct others and was often met with resistance. Group 2 spent much more time than group 1 defining the meaning of the system features and how they should be used relative to the task at hand; also group 2 had relatively few disagreements about appropriation or unfaithful appropriation. In group 2 conflict was confined to critical work on differences rather than the escalated argument present in group 1. This example shows how the Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) can help to understand advanced technology in group interactions. Although the same technology was introduced to both groups, the effects were not consistent due to differences in each group’s appropriation moves.
References
Key publications
Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5, 121-147
Maznevski, M. L. & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness. Organization Science. 11, 473-492
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group Decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1986). A structurational approach to theory-building in group decision-making research. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.),
Communication and group decision making (pp. 2437-264). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Seibold, D. (1998). Jurors¹ intuitive rules for deliberation: a structural approach to communication in jury decision making. Communication Monographs, 65, p. 287-307.
Anderson, R. & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of Communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin¹s Press, not in.
Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, p. 229-230.
Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory
New Ideas! Maggie:)
Distance Education in that the infrastructure typically associated with Higher Education (buildings, etc) depicting and expressing the regality of the Higher Education realm is substituted by the theory, material and language of the Instruction and Instructor.
I will be using Structuration theory to bring about and explain the evolution of the change of the realm of Higher Education which has experienced the changes through the popularization of the Distance venue in this era of Education.
January 9, 2010.
I have adaptive Structuration Theory in my Blogs. Structuration Theory in my Comps as an example. Maybe ty in with the Gerunding in the Dissertation.
I will be using Structuration theory to bring about and explain the evolution of the change of the realm of Higher Education which has experienced the changes through the popularization of the Distance venue in this era of Education.
January 9, 2010.
I have adaptive Structuration Theory in my Blogs. Structuration Theory in my Comps as an example. Maybe ty in with the Gerunding in the Dissertation.
Margith's String Ideas.
String theory in education and distance learning is about the concept of "strings" in the continuous and separated sense of the rope, and the representation that the modulus (which is the amplitude) is the indicator of the effectiveness of the nature of the educational format or context which we are considering in the particular example. The amplitude of the string can vary, much like the sound waves and the larger the amplitude, the louder the sound is; in this lies the idea that the more effective the Instructor, the larger the amplitude of the string. The continuity of the string represents the cohesiveness of the course, or the number of students in the class.
I would have to play with the idea that if one were to cause a vibrational resonance with a string or a rope, and physically cause the string to have varying amplitudes, the dispersion of the energy would have to vary depending upon the material with which the string or rope is made. There are materials were the resonance is built into the characteristric of the material, and therefore the dissipation of the waves would take longer to occur. Symbolically, we can perhaps represent this as the energetics of a class section and use the physical notations and characteristics of string physics and dynamics to discuss the energetics and characteristics of the class.
I would have to play with the idea that if one were to cause a vibrational resonance with a string or a rope, and physically cause the string to have varying amplitudes, the dispersion of the energy would have to vary depending upon the material with which the string or rope is made. There are materials were the resonance is built into the characteristric of the material, and therefore the dissipation of the waves would take longer to occur. Symbolically, we can perhaps represent this as the energetics of a class section and use the physical notations and characteristics of string physics and dynamics to discuss the energetics and characteristics of the class.
Margith A. Strand/Ideas?
We are in the era of the inventions of ideas that are emotionally linked to the progression of ourselves. Psychology is an applied science in that it helps with the details which are related?
February 2, 2010
The configuration of the distance learning venue is that the ....
Margith Strand/ February 2, 2010
The importance of the object analysis is....
The need of the integrity of the...
The tuition basis is the...
The way to be the best is...articulation, analysis and understanding.
The breadth of the range in the intertexuality is...
The in-text narrative is...
The level of the learning is...lateral and longitudinal in that the circumference is complete. And so...The levels are in degrees. And ranges...are fields of energy and energetics. In that the subject matters are included in the ....
The level of the teaching is....determined by who you are?
The learning is the modality of...
The teaching is the modality of...
The distance education is the modality of...
The mobile is....travel of knowledge and range.
The levels of the mobile is....similar to the ranges of the learning and teaching. It is in degrees.
Accrediting Council for Distance Education
American Council for Distance Education/Margith Strand
Distance Education Council for Accreditation
Integrated Distance Education Council for Accreditation
Distance Learning and Teaching Council for Universities
Distance Learning and Teaching Council for Colleges
Distance Education Council for Integrated Education
Margith Strand/ February 2, 2010
The importance of the object analysis is....
The need of the integrity of the...
The tuition basis is the...
The way to be the best is...articulation, analysis and understanding.
The breadth of the range in the intertexuality is...
The in-text narrative is...
The level of the learning is...lateral and longitudinal in that the circumference is complete. And so...The levels are in degrees. And ranges...are fields of energy and energetics. In that the subject matters are included in the ....
The level of the teaching is....determined by who you are?
The learning is the modality of...
The teaching is the modality of...
The distance education is the modality of...
The mobile is....travel of knowledge and range.
The levels of the mobile is....similar to the ranges of the learning and teaching. It is in degrees.
Accrediting Council for Distance Education
American Council for Distance Education/Margith Strand
Distance Education Council for Accreditation
Integrated Distance Education Council for Accreditation
Distance Learning and Teaching Council for Universities
Distance Learning and Teaching Council for Colleges
Distance Education Council for Integrated Education
Margith A. Strand/ February 17, 2010
Cognitive Dynamics and Overlay concepts of abstract and concrete thought development from D.L., D.E., D.T. interactions:
Part of my Blog informational analysis from the CTCC components strategic approach and analysis.
Overlay and integration of the Subject Area approach and dynamics of cognitive abstract and concrete processes.
Versus the integration of theory in development of Context Theory and Design. Also a part of the Blog aspect.
Notes: Margith Strand January 15, 2010
For Knowledge Area ELC 782 and Dissertation
Part of my Blog informational analysis from the CTCC components strategic approach and analysis.
Overlay and integration of the Subject Area approach and dynamics of cognitive abstract and concrete processes.
Versus the integration of theory in development of Context Theory and Design. Also a part of the Blog aspect.
Notes: Margith Strand January 15, 2010
For Knowledge Area ELC 782 and Dissertation
Language is...Halladay!
Language is not a social fact’ (1978:1) i.e., social relationships constitute language. This is the case with all semiotic code.
Halladay
Language is not a social fact....in this statement, we see that the opposite function is one that is stated as "Language is a social fact." makes more sense in that there is a sense of communication and expression of the meaning in the nuances of the structure and the hierarchy which is accomodated by the expression.
The communication of the semiotic delivery is one that is needed in the transfer of ideas that are theory.
Semiotic theory is one that is....
Theory and semiotic delivery are connected in that the construction of the foundation are meanings in disguise or exposure.
Halladay
Language is not a social fact....in this statement, we see that the opposite function is one that is stated as "Language is a social fact." makes more sense in that there is a sense of communication and expression of the meaning in the nuances of the structure and the hierarchy which is accomodated by the expression.
The communication of the semiotic delivery is one that is needed in the transfer of ideas that are theory.
Semiotic theory is one that is....
Theory and semiotic delivery are connected in that the construction of the foundation are meanings in disguise or exposure.
Ideas and Thoughts! Margith A. Strand
Earlier Reflections from Notes/ Margith A. Strand / January 17, 2010 / Literature Reference / Notes for Knowlege Area Contract ELC 782 Shown Below/
Knowledge Area Application Context References/
Social semiotics’ can refer to two related but distinct entities. ‘Social semiotics’ without capitals is a broad, heterogeneous orientation within semiotics, straddling many other areas of inquiry concerned, in some way, with the social dimensions of meaning in any media of communication, its production, interpretation and circulation, and its implications in social processes, as cause or effect. ‘Social Semiotics’ with capitals is a distinguishable school in linguistics and semiotics which specifically addresses these issues. It is important because it synthesizes these issues, not because it covers those issues in a distinct or authoritative form. Social semiotics makes semiotics more broadly useful, and Social Semiotics assists in this process.
Three texts between them have helped to give currency and substance to the term and field of Social Semiotics. The influential linguist Michael Halliday’s Language as social semiotic, (1978) introduced the term ‘social semiotic’ into linguistics. Bob Hodge and Gunther Kress’s Social semiotics (1988) developed the term in a more fully semiotic framework. >From 1991 the journal Social Semiotics, influenced by both, provided a forum in which over a number of years different academics have given their own inflection to the term.
These three sets of influences have had distinct agendas and trajectories which enrich Social Semiotics, and each opens up specific connections with other fields of inquiry, within semiotics under that name, and beyond. Halliday was primarily a linguist. The ‘social semiotic’ for him contested the usual linguistic separation of language from its social nature, while at the same time beginning to expand its base beyond the verbal. Hodge and Kress were influenced by Halliday, and added a diverse semiotic base, incorporating the sometimes rival traditions of Saussure and Peirce. They also gave a critical inflection to the ‘social’, drawing especially on Marx and the Marxist tradition. The journal derived its name and rationale from ‘Social Semiotics’, but interpreted this generously in practice. This scope has the effect of problematizing any boundary that might have been supposed to exist around the specificity of Social Semiotics. Social Semiotics has become social semiotics, arguably benefiting both.
The broader field of social semiotics is the site of intersection between two more currents, not usually called semiotics but in practice implicitly or explicitly drawing on a social semiotic orientation and tool kit. ‘Discourse’ theory/analysis is widely used in many branches of social research. ‘Cultural studies’ is likewise a popular research tradition. Social Semiotics, which has many affinities with both, can act as a grand node, linking each to the other, reframing them within a wide network of related traditions. At the same time it can serve the salutary effect of bringing these vigorous traditions into the field of semiotics, energising semiotics and making its insights more widely available and appreciated.
Long Entry
1. Halliday’s ‘social semiotic’
Michael Halliday was already arguably Britain’s leading linguistic theorist when he coined the term ‘language as social semiotic’ in 1978. This prestige gave his intervention great impact, while at the same time it has kept the scope of that influence mainly within the study of verbal language. For him ‘the formulation “language as social semiotic” means… interpreting language within a socio-cultural context, in which the culture itself is interpreted in semiotic terms’ (1978:2). Implicit here is a division between ‘language’, understood as verbal language as studied by linguistics, and semiotics as the study of other systems, which interact with verbal language to make up culture.
Halliday here simultaneously illustrates and contests a widespread understanding of linguistics and semiotics as different branches of knowledge, as they often are institutionally, but not conceptually, as in Saussure’s grand scheme, which places linguistics within Semiotics (or Semiology, as he called it). Halliday’s position regarding semiotics is ambiguous. In one interpretation of his project he points to an as-yet undeveloped social semiotics to complete the work of his purely linguistic theory. However, in a more positive interpretation he is opening the way to a more complex relationship between linguistics and semiotics, in which insights into verbal codes, as understood with a more adequate linguistics, will illuminate the study of all other codes. In this sense his linguistic theory, framed to have a more adequate account of social forces and contexts, is already a strand in a Social Semiotics which did not yet exist when he wrote.
In spite of work by some of his followers (e.g., Martin and Rose 2005) the potential of Halliday’s ideas on verbal language has still not been fully realised as part of a general social semiotics, though some writers in Social Semiotics (e.g., Kress and Van Leeuwen) have absorbed Halliday’s ideas so deeply that the full extent of his influence is impossible to determine. The key premises of his linguistic theory, which work equally well as general premises for Social Semiotics, are:
‘Language is a social fact’ (1978:1) i.e., social relationships constitute language. This is the case with all semiotic codes.
‘We shall not come to understand the nature of language if we pursue only the kinds of question about language that are formulated by linguists’ (1978:3) That is, autonomous linguistics and semiotics alike are incapable of understanding the nature of their object in disciplinary isolation.
‘Language is as it is because of the functions it has evolved to serve in people’s lives’ (1978:4). That is, a functional perspective is a key to the inseparable relationship between semiotics and society, structure and function.
There are three functions, or ‘metafunctions’, of language (1978:112): ideational (‘about something’); interpersonal (’doing something’) and textual (‘the speaker’s text-forming potential’). The semiotic interpersonal and textual functions are more obviously social, but are inseparable in semiotic practice from the interpersonal.
Language is constituted as ‘a discrete network of options’ (1978:113). The idea of systems and networks (systems organised as networks) proposed by Halliday before the ‘Network Society’ has applications to all aspects of Social Semiotics that are yet to be fully explored.
2. The roots of Social Semiotics
Social Semiotics (1988) was undoubtedly influenced by Halliday’s ideas. One of the authors, Gunther Kress, had studied with Halliday in the late 1960s. Bob Hodge and Kress had first collaborated in a project primarily concerned with verbal language, called ‘Critical Linguistics’ (Hodge and Kress 1993(1979)). Semiotically this was limited to verbal language, though like Halliday’s work it was already implicitly semiotic. It synthesized a range of schools of linguistics, including warring divisions within mainstream linguistics (Noam Chomsky and his followers, Halliday as a major alternative, Benjamin Lee Whorf’s anthropological linguistics) and socio-linguistics (William Labov, Basil Bernstein, R. Brown and A. Gilman, Dell Hymes, Harvey Sacks, J.L. Austin). It also incorporated theorists of language from outside the discipline of linguistics, such as Herbert Marcuse, Jean Piaget and Sigmund Freud. But crucially this project framed the field with a critical account of society derived from Marx.
Social Semiotics built on Halliday’s five principles, and added distinctive emphases:
Semiotics is the minimal framework for the study of social meanings because there are complex patterns of similarities and differences across different codes, and because social meanings typically flow continually between different codes. Social meanings cannot be tracked only in one code, even in verbal language as the dominant one. The supposed dominance and autonomy of the verbal code is indeed an ideological assumption whose taken-for-granted truth needs to be questioned by social semiotics.
The unitary object of social semiotics is constituted by a series of dialectics: between Halliday’s interpersonal and ideational functions, between ‘text’ (‘a string of messages which is ascribed a semiotic unity’ 1988:263) and ‘discourse’ (‘the social process in which texts are embedded’ 1988:6); and more generally between ‘semiosis’ (‘the processes and effects of the production and reproduction, reception and circulation of meaning in all forms’ 1988:261) and ‘mimesis’ (‘implying some version(s) of reality as a possible referent’ 1988:262).
Power and solidarity are key dimensions of social structures and related meanings, inseparably related in social semiotic practice.
Ideology, a key category in Marxism, is also central in social semiotic analysis, but inflected by social semiotic principles to become the idea of the ideological complex. Instead of the usual assumption that ideology is false consciousness, consistent with itself but misrepresenting reality on behalf of ideologues, the minimal unit of meaning in an ideological complex is its functional set of contradictions, motivated by the need for ideologues to balance issues of power and solidarity for their relations with those they are addressing.
The relationship with reality, treated as a problem for semiotic theory in most forms of semiotics, is seen as constitutive in social semiotic practice. Reality-claims and their contestation are woven into every semiotic act, and determine their social effect. Systems, markers, traces and effects of ‘modality’ (‘the presumed relation of its mimetic content to a world of referents’ 1988:264) are therefore central objects of interest for social semiotic analysis.
Transformations occur everywhere in social semiosis, in texts and systems of classification, as semiosic activity works over different versions of reality for many reasons, all of which have social origins and meanings. The concept of transformations (taken from Chomsky but transformed) is a crucial strategy for analysing the diachronic dimension (time, change) which in its different scales is part of every social semiotic fact, interacting inseparably with relations as they exist within any given time.
3. Social Semiotics and critical discourse analysis
‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ (often abbreviated to CDA) is often treated as distinct from Social Semiotics, and not strictly part of semiotics. Yet there are good reasons both conceptually and genealogically for seeing it as a branch of social semiotics. Both developed at more or less the same time from Critical Linguistics. Norman Fairclough first called his version of Critical Linguistics ‘Critical language studies’ (1989), then ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ (1995), naming a field that has exploded over two decades, describing a research tool that proved attractive to a wide range of researchers.
‘CDA’ owes much of its appeal to the role it gives to ‘discourse’. This term gained currency through the work of Michel Foucault, perhaps the best known social theorist of his time. However, Foucault was a grand theorist rather than a local analyst, a highly intelligent commentator on a range of issues in the formation of modernity who did not develop or need a method as such, capable of analysing instances of discourse. ‘CDA’ supplied the missing ingredient, a method of analysing linguistic texts to complement Foucault’s theories and concepts.
There are many reasons why CDA ought to have situated itself in a semiotic framework. Power, its major focus of interest, acts through verbal discourse, but not in words alone. The limitation to verbal language ties the analytic hands of CDA. Of the main types of discourse it studies, media discourse, policy discourse, and interactional discourse, only policy is represented mainly in verbal discourse. Increasingly the media are multi-media forms, and interactions have always occurred in multi-semiotic spaces. Ethnography, a form of social semiotics without the name, drew on verbal discourse, collected through interviews, alongside objects and practices viewed through the semiotic tactic of ‘participant observation’. Classic ethnography tended to obscure power-relations, the forte of CDA (and also important for Social Semiotics), but the social semiotic practices of ‘postmodern ethnography’ (Clifford and Marcus 1986) is good social semiotics, aware of relations of power and solidarity in ethnography’s semiosic relationships.
The term ‘critical’ in both ‘Critical Linguistics’ and ‘CDA’ has an ambiguous legacy. On the one hand it creates a hostile relationship of analysts to objects of analysis, since it typically aims to expose the mechanisms of power in the semiotic transaction. In terms of social semiotics this is an advance on classic social science research, which masks this constitutive semiosic relationship under the ideology of ‘objectivity’. Yet semiosis is rarely the pure exercise of power. Relationships of solidarity usually co-exist, including kinds of ‘appreciative’ analysis. It is no accident that ‘critical’ has disappeared from the name ‘Social Semiotics’.
Foucault’s own formulations of discourse seem to take for granted the pre-eminence of verbal language, but they tend to have a capacious social semiotic space around them, which can be seen in his practice also. For instance, one of his most influential ideas has been his highly semiotic analysis of Bentham’s ‘Panopticon’ (1977), an image portraying the design for a gaol in which unseen warders view prisoners from a central tower. The disciplinary practices he analyses, represented in architectural and other spatial arrangements, are all realized through a multiplicity of sign systems, studied as part of social semiotics.
Foucault’s concept of the ‘discursive regime’ (1972) is both a powerful contribution to social semiotics, and in need of a social semiotic framework. A ‘discursive regime’ is an abstract social system which specifies who can speak and what they can speak about, in what circumstances. There are crucial social semiotic questions about who institutes these regimes and how, and what lies outside their scope. The problematic status of ‘reality’ in discourse analysis, which seemingly cannot appeal to ‘reality’ outside of discourse, can be resolved in a Social Semiotic framework, in which there are too many alternative semiotic modes accessing the different objects of discourse for any discursive regime to be fully successful as an instrument of control, and in which the complex mechanisms by which ‘reality’ is specified and controlled (‘modality’ systems) are themselves transparent and available to analysis.
Foucault was treated as a major influence, in effect a social semiotician, in Social Semiotics, as well playing an even more key role in CDA, but with the social semiotic links trimmed back. Given all these over-laps we can ask: does it matter whether Foucault is understood as more a discourse analyst than a social semiotician, or whether CDA, with all its many affinities with Social Semiotics and Critical Linguistics, is declared to be part of social semiotics, or set off against it? Both Social Semiotics and CDA would agree that it does matter, since the social mechanisms and effects of these processes of definition are central objects of analysis in each.
4. Multimodality
Two theorists in particular have worked on the institutional interface between Social Semiotics and CDA. Gunther Kress was a founding theorist of Social Semiotics, a student of Halliday, able to synthesize the different branches of Social Semiotics, with publications using Critical Linguistics that are evidently also CDA. Theo Van Leeuwen was a semiotic Hallidayan who applied Halliday’s ideas to technical aspects of a number of media, music, film and design, and continued to develop a Social Semiotic framework (2005). Together they wrote on ‘Multimodal Discourse’ (2001) in a theory which had a strong social semiotic base, yet used the term ‘discourse’.
Multimodality has two general strengths that have contributed to its popularity. Firstly it has demonstrated the important role played by the semiotic characteristics of communication even in one media, verbal discourse of print media. They showed the systematic role played by layout and design, within a print text and between print and graphic elements. They called these different semiotic channels ‘modes’, so that ‘multimodality’ signals the need for a semiotic analysis, not merely a mono-modal analysis as in discourse analysis (and critical linguistics). Secondly, this view of media texts as always multi-modal applies especially well to the new media, whose multimedia forms, structures and processes severely challenge older mono-modal forms of analysis.
The complex situation of Multimodality as viewed through social semiotic lenses illustrates many contradictory aspects of the case of social semiotics, and semiotics itself. The term ‘multimodal discourse’ declares an affiliation with CDA, though its practitioners typically do not set multimodality squarely within its scope. At the same time it transformationally deletes ‘semiotics’ and ‘social semiotics’ from the title, and downplays it in the description, even though the writers sufficiently declare that this is a development from social semiotics. In their place the key term is ‘multimodality’, which is incomprehensible in everyday discourse.
To begin to explain this we can adapt Foucault’s idea of a ‘discursive regime’, and suppose that there is an abstract entity in current academic discourse which is making ‘semiotics’ and ‘social semiotics’ almost unspeakable. This can be spoken about, and social semiotics taken seriously, in some privileged spaces, such as the present Encyclopedia. Yet (a socio-semiotic claim there is no space to demonstrate here) even this space has shrunken over the past few decades. This is a fact of discursive power, not a judgement on the adequacy of semiotics. In the same time both ‘discourse’ and ‘critical’ have become more speakable, to become the dominant carrier of social semiotics today. Yet sign systems have not simplified down to the single channel, verbal, but the contrary. The entanglement of signs has become ever more complex and pervasive, ever more inseparable from dominant social processes.
To cope with this situation any kind of exclusively verbal analysis is ever less capable of being critical. Yet, for the time being, Social Semiotics withers, and CDA flourishes.
A proposition like this can be asserted within CDA. However, it can only be examined within the framework, Social Semiotics, whose slow demise it deals with. Social semiotics can describe the multi-semiotic terrain in which this process is taking place, the effectivity of the many non-verbal codes, and the cost of their exclusion from the field of study.
In all this it is important to hold out for the importance of the general project of social semiotics, deploying the full range of semiotic insights, whether or not they are officially part of a meta-discipline of semiotics. Social semiotics on this scale is so amorphous and diverse it is almost impossible to capture in any agreed description or definition. But like God, as Voltaire famously said, if it didn’t exist we would have to invent it.
Bibliography
Clifford, J and Marcus, G 1986 Writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press
Fairclough, N 1989 Language and power. London: Longmans.
Fairclough, N 1995 Critical discourse analysis. London: Longmans.
Foucault, M 1972 ‘The order of discourse’. In Archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M 1977 Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Halliday, M 1978 Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Hodge, B and Kress, G 1988 Social Semiotics Cambridge: Polity
Hodge, B and Kress, G 1993 Language as Ideology, 2 nd ed.. London: Routledge
Kress, G and Van Leeuwen, T 2001 Multimodal discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Van Leeuwen, T 2005 Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
Author
Bob Hodge
THEORIES OF LEARNING
Cognitive Constructivism
Dissatisfaction with behaviorism's strict focus on observable behavior led educational psychologists such as Jean Piaget and William Perry to demand an approach to learning theory that paid more attention to what went on "inside the learner's head." They developed a cognitive approach that focused on mental processes rather than observable behavior. Common to most cognitivist approaches is the idea that knowledge comprises symbolic mental representations, such as propositions and images, together with a mechanism that operates on those representations. Knowledge is seen as something that is actively constructed by learners based on their existing cognitive structures. Therefore, it is relative to their stage of cognitive development; understanding the learner's existing intellectual framework is central to understanding the learning process.
Knowledge
Behaviorists maintain that knowledge is a passively absorbed behavioral repertoire. Cognitive constructivists reject that claim, arguing instead that knowledge is actively constructed by learners and that any account of knowledge makes essential references to cognitive structures. Knowledge comprises active systems of intentional mental representations derived from past learning experiences. Each learner interprets experiences and information in the light of their extant knowledge, their stage of cognitive development, their cultural background, their personal history, and so forth. Learners use these factors to organize their experience and to select and transform new information. Knowledge is therefore actively constructed by the learner rather than passively absorbed; it is essentially dependent on the standpoint from which the learner approaches it.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Analysis for Knowledge Area ELC 782 Contract / Margith A. Strand / January 17, 2010
Knowledge consists of understanding and comprehension of the processes and flow of the mechanism of the theory which is the basis of the subject matter at hand. Applicartion of the theory is the understanding, in reality terms of the terms of what exists in the world that encompasses the student's realm of structure and environment, especially in the world of Distance Education. Knowledge is Process theory with a basis of structure and relevance in the person's life. Margith A. Strand/ January 16, 2010.
Cognition is recognition, awareness of what has been learned. [M.S.]
Constructivism: which argues that humans generate knowledge and meaning from their experiences. [Wildepekia]
Distance Education must reinforce and emphasize the approach of students being able to generate knowledge..feature of critical thinking genre...graduate students can do this in DE (generate knowledge). Application theory of DE in that the theories must actively be applied to feedback the knowledge gained from their course. Cornerstone theory of project delivery and constructivistic application of course guidelines and course content use. [M.S.]
Constructivism is not a specific pedagogy. [Not my comment/ M.S.] (Wilkepedia)
[All below M.S.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________:
The following are comments on my Knowledge Area: Why is Distance Education theory based? Reductionism and Social Atomism are Agencies of Structuration theory and Adaptive Structuration Theory? Establish Reductionism and Social Atomism as parts of the concept of Agency in AST. In Skill Development Outcomes/Section B, refer to IA and IIA of Content Outcomes IA. For Skill Development Outcomes Part C, apply the concept of Constructivistic Angle of Presentations (for professional practice section)? [Rate: 10]
For the Overview Section (#2 of my points) define the difference between limitations and delimitations for the process of utilizing the technology.[Rate: 4.5]
For the development of the Dissertation section, name differences in the Structuration and Adaptive Structuration Theory. Explore the concepts behind "mobility" and Context Theory (Blog reference-MAS). [Rate: 6.5 and 9]
Explore the interactions of Distance Education and Constructivistic Theory rather than Higher Education and Distance Education, per se.
Integration of thought procedures, clarity of functional design, process analysis....just some ideas to use. [Rate: 8.7]
Platform portfolio, presentation instructional design...process analysis...logistical...mine is more theoretical in construction of theory behind Distance Education and procedure of cognitive approaches and interactions between traditional? theories such as Social Semiotic, Constructivistic, Social Constructivistic, Social Network, Adaptive Structuration Theory..:) [Rate: 10]
Moving on...Constructivistic Theory is the basis of Distance Learning and Process Theory. [Rate: 10 (out of 10)] Needs to back up! :) + :) + :)
Constructionism and Constructivistic Learning...cousins? Establish the differences? [Rate: 3 (out of 10)]
I am not into comparing theories..I am into using them to bring them out and applying them so that my ideas are lucid to the generals who can use them:)
Social network theory is visible in the Wildekepia section of Social Theory definitions (circa January 14, 2010) in my diagrammatic nodal representations.
Place to Blog:
From the Social Semiotics section: Language is constituted as ‘a discrete network of options’ (1978:113). The idea of systems and networks (systems organised as networks) proposed by Halliday before the ‘Network Society’ has applications to all aspects of Social Semiotics that are yet to be fully explored
My take on this is that In terms of Social Network theory, the elucidation of the concepts and the application of the choice of words and wording are what makes the messaging come through. It is the function of the wording and the "causation of the semiotic delivery" [M.S.] which is the important role of the terminology in the expression. Nodal connections, as mentioned in the Social Networking diagrams, are actually representative of the "function" of the causation that the words bring about [M.S.] The activity coefficients are the points of effectiveness of the wording of the messaging. [M.S.] Activity coefficients are actually, in my mind, in the Social Theory expressions, the "value" and somewhat numerical "raters" of the extent of the effectivity of the function for which the delivery is being made.
Causation...construction of the cause....meaning and delivery...function to bring about....causation...semiotic delivery...words as meaning...semiotic...Inherently, words do not have meaning...words have meaning when function thereforewith are delivered as a consequence of ....the delivery must be attached. Words have no meaning unless the word itself has meaning in the student's life...perspective and delivery...love. Part of structure and needed in its inherent necessity.
Words have definition...knowledge, comprehension and delivery of. Knowledge is ok to know...action to bring about. Construction..words have definition..delivery is where it is at...Construction of words as meanings....function.
Knowledge
Behaviorists maintain that knowledge is a passively absorbed behavioral repertoire. Cognitive constructivists reject that claim, arguing instead that knowledge is actively constructed by learners and that any account of knowledge makes essential references to cognitive structures. Knowledge comprises active systems of intentional mental representations derived from past learning experiences. Each learner interprets experiences and information in the light of their extant knowledge, their stage of cognitive development, their cultural background, their personal history, and so forth. Learners use these factors to organize their experience and to select and transform new information. Knowledge is therefore actively constructed by the learner rather than passively absorbed; it is essentially dependent on the standpoint from which the learner approaches it.
Social Atomism is something that expresses the theory of independence and self-construction in that the idea revolves around the importance of individualism and, in my mind self-reliance. I am approaching this theory within the context of Distance Education and Distance Learning.
Knowledge Area Application Context References/
Social semiotics’ can refer to two related but distinct entities. ‘Social semiotics’ without capitals is a broad, heterogeneous orientation within semiotics, straddling many other areas of inquiry concerned, in some way, with the social dimensions of meaning in any media of communication, its production, interpretation and circulation, and its implications in social processes, as cause or effect. ‘Social Semiotics’ with capitals is a distinguishable school in linguistics and semiotics which specifically addresses these issues. It is important because it synthesizes these issues, not because it covers those issues in a distinct or authoritative form. Social semiotics makes semiotics more broadly useful, and Social Semiotics assists in this process.
Three texts between them have helped to give currency and substance to the term and field of Social Semiotics. The influential linguist Michael Halliday’s Language as social semiotic, (1978) introduced the term ‘social semiotic’ into linguistics. Bob Hodge and Gunther Kress’s Social semiotics (1988) developed the term in a more fully semiotic framework. >From 1991 the journal Social Semiotics, influenced by both, provided a forum in which over a number of years different academics have given their own inflection to the term.
These three sets of influences have had distinct agendas and trajectories which enrich Social Semiotics, and each opens up specific connections with other fields of inquiry, within semiotics under that name, and beyond. Halliday was primarily a linguist. The ‘social semiotic’ for him contested the usual linguistic separation of language from its social nature, while at the same time beginning to expand its base beyond the verbal. Hodge and Kress were influenced by Halliday, and added a diverse semiotic base, incorporating the sometimes rival traditions of Saussure and Peirce. They also gave a critical inflection to the ‘social’, drawing especially on Marx and the Marxist tradition. The journal derived its name and rationale from ‘Social Semiotics’, but interpreted this generously in practice. This scope has the effect of problematizing any boundary that might have been supposed to exist around the specificity of Social Semiotics. Social Semiotics has become social semiotics, arguably benefiting both.
The broader field of social semiotics is the site of intersection between two more currents, not usually called semiotics but in practice implicitly or explicitly drawing on a social semiotic orientation and tool kit. ‘Discourse’ theory/analysis is widely used in many branches of social research. ‘Cultural studies’ is likewise a popular research tradition. Social Semiotics, which has many affinities with both, can act as a grand node, linking each to the other, reframing them within a wide network of related traditions. At the same time it can serve the salutary effect of bringing these vigorous traditions into the field of semiotics, energising semiotics and making its insights more widely available and appreciated.
Long Entry
1. Halliday’s ‘social semiotic’
Michael Halliday was already arguably Britain’s leading linguistic theorist when he coined the term ‘language as social semiotic’ in 1978. This prestige gave his intervention great impact, while at the same time it has kept the scope of that influence mainly within the study of verbal language. For him ‘the formulation “language as social semiotic” means… interpreting language within a socio-cultural context, in which the culture itself is interpreted in semiotic terms’ (1978:2). Implicit here is a division between ‘language’, understood as verbal language as studied by linguistics, and semiotics as the study of other systems, which interact with verbal language to make up culture.
Halliday here simultaneously illustrates and contests a widespread understanding of linguistics and semiotics as different branches of knowledge, as they often are institutionally, but not conceptually, as in Saussure’s grand scheme, which places linguistics within Semiotics (or Semiology, as he called it). Halliday’s position regarding semiotics is ambiguous. In one interpretation of his project he points to an as-yet undeveloped social semiotics to complete the work of his purely linguistic theory. However, in a more positive interpretation he is opening the way to a more complex relationship between linguistics and semiotics, in which insights into verbal codes, as understood with a more adequate linguistics, will illuminate the study of all other codes. In this sense his linguistic theory, framed to have a more adequate account of social forces and contexts, is already a strand in a Social Semiotics which did not yet exist when he wrote.
In spite of work by some of his followers (e.g., Martin and Rose 2005) the potential of Halliday’s ideas on verbal language has still not been fully realised as part of a general social semiotics, though some writers in Social Semiotics (e.g., Kress and Van Leeuwen) have absorbed Halliday’s ideas so deeply that the full extent of his influence is impossible to determine. The key premises of his linguistic theory, which work equally well as general premises for Social Semiotics, are:
‘Language is a social fact’ (1978:1) i.e., social relationships constitute language. This is the case with all semiotic codes.
‘We shall not come to understand the nature of language if we pursue only the kinds of question about language that are formulated by linguists’ (1978:3) That is, autonomous linguistics and semiotics alike are incapable of understanding the nature of their object in disciplinary isolation.
‘Language is as it is because of the functions it has evolved to serve in people’s lives’ (1978:4). That is, a functional perspective is a key to the inseparable relationship between semiotics and society, structure and function.
There are three functions, or ‘metafunctions’, of language (1978:112): ideational (‘about something’); interpersonal (’doing something’) and textual (‘the speaker’s text-forming potential’). The semiotic interpersonal and textual functions are more obviously social, but are inseparable in semiotic practice from the interpersonal.
Language is constituted as ‘a discrete network of options’ (1978:113). The idea of systems and networks (systems organised as networks) proposed by Halliday before the ‘Network Society’ has applications to all aspects of Social Semiotics that are yet to be fully explored.
2. The roots of Social Semiotics
Social Semiotics (1988) was undoubtedly influenced by Halliday’s ideas. One of the authors, Gunther Kress, had studied with Halliday in the late 1960s. Bob Hodge and Kress had first collaborated in a project primarily concerned with verbal language, called ‘Critical Linguistics’ (Hodge and Kress 1993(1979)). Semiotically this was limited to verbal language, though like Halliday’s work it was already implicitly semiotic. It synthesized a range of schools of linguistics, including warring divisions within mainstream linguistics (Noam Chomsky and his followers, Halliday as a major alternative, Benjamin Lee Whorf’s anthropological linguistics) and socio-linguistics (William Labov, Basil Bernstein, R. Brown and A. Gilman, Dell Hymes, Harvey Sacks, J.L. Austin). It also incorporated theorists of language from outside the discipline of linguistics, such as Herbert Marcuse, Jean Piaget and Sigmund Freud. But crucially this project framed the field with a critical account of society derived from Marx.
Social Semiotics built on Halliday’s five principles, and added distinctive emphases:
Semiotics is the minimal framework for the study of social meanings because there are complex patterns of similarities and differences across different codes, and because social meanings typically flow continually between different codes. Social meanings cannot be tracked only in one code, even in verbal language as the dominant one. The supposed dominance and autonomy of the verbal code is indeed an ideological assumption whose taken-for-granted truth needs to be questioned by social semiotics.
The unitary object of social semiotics is constituted by a series of dialectics: between Halliday’s interpersonal and ideational functions, between ‘text’ (‘a string of messages which is ascribed a semiotic unity’ 1988:263) and ‘discourse’ (‘the social process in which texts are embedded’ 1988:6); and more generally between ‘semiosis’ (‘the processes and effects of the production and reproduction, reception and circulation of meaning in all forms’ 1988:261) and ‘mimesis’ (‘implying some version(s) of reality as a possible referent’ 1988:262).
Power and solidarity are key dimensions of social structures and related meanings, inseparably related in social semiotic practice.
Ideology, a key category in Marxism, is also central in social semiotic analysis, but inflected by social semiotic principles to become the idea of the ideological complex. Instead of the usual assumption that ideology is false consciousness, consistent with itself but misrepresenting reality on behalf of ideologues, the minimal unit of meaning in an ideological complex is its functional set of contradictions, motivated by the need for ideologues to balance issues of power and solidarity for their relations with those they are addressing.
The relationship with reality, treated as a problem for semiotic theory in most forms of semiotics, is seen as constitutive in social semiotic practice. Reality-claims and their contestation are woven into every semiotic act, and determine their social effect. Systems, markers, traces and effects of ‘modality’ (‘the presumed relation of its mimetic content to a world of referents’ 1988:264) are therefore central objects of interest for social semiotic analysis.
Transformations occur everywhere in social semiosis, in texts and systems of classification, as semiosic activity works over different versions of reality for many reasons, all of which have social origins and meanings. The concept of transformations (taken from Chomsky but transformed) is a crucial strategy for analysing the diachronic dimension (time, change) which in its different scales is part of every social semiotic fact, interacting inseparably with relations as they exist within any given time.
3. Social Semiotics and critical discourse analysis
‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ (often abbreviated to CDA) is often treated as distinct from Social Semiotics, and not strictly part of semiotics. Yet there are good reasons both conceptually and genealogically for seeing it as a branch of social semiotics. Both developed at more or less the same time from Critical Linguistics. Norman Fairclough first called his version of Critical Linguistics ‘Critical language studies’ (1989), then ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ (1995), naming a field that has exploded over two decades, describing a research tool that proved attractive to a wide range of researchers.
‘CDA’ owes much of its appeal to the role it gives to ‘discourse’. This term gained currency through the work of Michel Foucault, perhaps the best known social theorist of his time. However, Foucault was a grand theorist rather than a local analyst, a highly intelligent commentator on a range of issues in the formation of modernity who did not develop or need a method as such, capable of analysing instances of discourse. ‘CDA’ supplied the missing ingredient, a method of analysing linguistic texts to complement Foucault’s theories and concepts.
There are many reasons why CDA ought to have situated itself in a semiotic framework. Power, its major focus of interest, acts through verbal discourse, but not in words alone. The limitation to verbal language ties the analytic hands of CDA. Of the main types of discourse it studies, media discourse, policy discourse, and interactional discourse, only policy is represented mainly in verbal discourse. Increasingly the media are multi-media forms, and interactions have always occurred in multi-semiotic spaces. Ethnography, a form of social semiotics without the name, drew on verbal discourse, collected through interviews, alongside objects and practices viewed through the semiotic tactic of ‘participant observation’. Classic ethnography tended to obscure power-relations, the forte of CDA (and also important for Social Semiotics), but the social semiotic practices of ‘postmodern ethnography’ (Clifford and Marcus 1986) is good social semiotics, aware of relations of power and solidarity in ethnography’s semiosic relationships.
The term ‘critical’ in both ‘Critical Linguistics’ and ‘CDA’ has an ambiguous legacy. On the one hand it creates a hostile relationship of analysts to objects of analysis, since it typically aims to expose the mechanisms of power in the semiotic transaction. In terms of social semiotics this is an advance on classic social science research, which masks this constitutive semiosic relationship under the ideology of ‘objectivity’. Yet semiosis is rarely the pure exercise of power. Relationships of solidarity usually co-exist, including kinds of ‘appreciative’ analysis. It is no accident that ‘critical’ has disappeared from the name ‘Social Semiotics’.
Foucault’s own formulations of discourse seem to take for granted the pre-eminence of verbal language, but they tend to have a capacious social semiotic space around them, which can be seen in his practice also. For instance, one of his most influential ideas has been his highly semiotic analysis of Bentham’s ‘Panopticon’ (1977), an image portraying the design for a gaol in which unseen warders view prisoners from a central tower. The disciplinary practices he analyses, represented in architectural and other spatial arrangements, are all realized through a multiplicity of sign systems, studied as part of social semiotics.
Foucault’s concept of the ‘discursive regime’ (1972) is both a powerful contribution to social semiotics, and in need of a social semiotic framework. A ‘discursive regime’ is an abstract social system which specifies who can speak and what they can speak about, in what circumstances. There are crucial social semiotic questions about who institutes these regimes and how, and what lies outside their scope. The problematic status of ‘reality’ in discourse analysis, which seemingly cannot appeal to ‘reality’ outside of discourse, can be resolved in a Social Semiotic framework, in which there are too many alternative semiotic modes accessing the different objects of discourse for any discursive regime to be fully successful as an instrument of control, and in which the complex mechanisms by which ‘reality’ is specified and controlled (‘modality’ systems) are themselves transparent and available to analysis.
Foucault was treated as a major influence, in effect a social semiotician, in Social Semiotics, as well playing an even more key role in CDA, but with the social semiotic links trimmed back. Given all these over-laps we can ask: does it matter whether Foucault is understood as more a discourse analyst than a social semiotician, or whether CDA, with all its many affinities with Social Semiotics and Critical Linguistics, is declared to be part of social semiotics, or set off against it? Both Social Semiotics and CDA would agree that it does matter, since the social mechanisms and effects of these processes of definition are central objects of analysis in each.
4. Multimodality
Two theorists in particular have worked on the institutional interface between Social Semiotics and CDA. Gunther Kress was a founding theorist of Social Semiotics, a student of Halliday, able to synthesize the different branches of Social Semiotics, with publications using Critical Linguistics that are evidently also CDA. Theo Van Leeuwen was a semiotic Hallidayan who applied Halliday’s ideas to technical aspects of a number of media, music, film and design, and continued to develop a Social Semiotic framework (2005). Together they wrote on ‘Multimodal Discourse’ (2001) in a theory which had a strong social semiotic base, yet used the term ‘discourse’.
Multimodality has two general strengths that have contributed to its popularity. Firstly it has demonstrated the important role played by the semiotic characteristics of communication even in one media, verbal discourse of print media. They showed the systematic role played by layout and design, within a print text and between print and graphic elements. They called these different semiotic channels ‘modes’, so that ‘multimodality’ signals the need for a semiotic analysis, not merely a mono-modal analysis as in discourse analysis (and critical linguistics). Secondly, this view of media texts as always multi-modal applies especially well to the new media, whose multimedia forms, structures and processes severely challenge older mono-modal forms of analysis.
The complex situation of Multimodality as viewed through social semiotic lenses illustrates many contradictory aspects of the case of social semiotics, and semiotics itself. The term ‘multimodal discourse’ declares an affiliation with CDA, though its practitioners typically do not set multimodality squarely within its scope. At the same time it transformationally deletes ‘semiotics’ and ‘social semiotics’ from the title, and downplays it in the description, even though the writers sufficiently declare that this is a development from social semiotics. In their place the key term is ‘multimodality’, which is incomprehensible in everyday discourse.
To begin to explain this we can adapt Foucault’s idea of a ‘discursive regime’, and suppose that there is an abstract entity in current academic discourse which is making ‘semiotics’ and ‘social semiotics’ almost unspeakable. This can be spoken about, and social semiotics taken seriously, in some privileged spaces, such as the present Encyclopedia. Yet (a socio-semiotic claim there is no space to demonstrate here) even this space has shrunken over the past few decades. This is a fact of discursive power, not a judgement on the adequacy of semiotics. In the same time both ‘discourse’ and ‘critical’ have become more speakable, to become the dominant carrier of social semiotics today. Yet sign systems have not simplified down to the single channel, verbal, but the contrary. The entanglement of signs has become ever more complex and pervasive, ever more inseparable from dominant social processes.
To cope with this situation any kind of exclusively verbal analysis is ever less capable of being critical. Yet, for the time being, Social Semiotics withers, and CDA flourishes.
A proposition like this can be asserted within CDA. However, it can only be examined within the framework, Social Semiotics, whose slow demise it deals with. Social semiotics can describe the multi-semiotic terrain in which this process is taking place, the effectivity of the many non-verbal codes, and the cost of their exclusion from the field of study.
In all this it is important to hold out for the importance of the general project of social semiotics, deploying the full range of semiotic insights, whether or not they are officially part of a meta-discipline of semiotics. Social semiotics on this scale is so amorphous and diverse it is almost impossible to capture in any agreed description or definition. But like God, as Voltaire famously said, if it didn’t exist we would have to invent it.
Bibliography
Clifford, J and Marcus, G 1986 Writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press
Fairclough, N 1989 Language and power. London: Longmans.
Fairclough, N 1995 Critical discourse analysis. London: Longmans.
Foucault, M 1972 ‘The order of discourse’. In Archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M 1977 Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Halliday, M 1978 Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Hodge, B and Kress, G 1988 Social Semiotics Cambridge: Polity
Hodge, B and Kress, G 1993 Language as Ideology, 2 nd ed.. London: Routledge
Kress, G and Van Leeuwen, T 2001 Multimodal discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Van Leeuwen, T 2005 Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
Author
Bob Hodge
THEORIES OF LEARNING
Cognitive Constructivism
Dissatisfaction with behaviorism's strict focus on observable behavior led educational psychologists such as Jean Piaget and William Perry to demand an approach to learning theory that paid more attention to what went on "inside the learner's head." They developed a cognitive approach that focused on mental processes rather than observable behavior. Common to most cognitivist approaches is the idea that knowledge comprises symbolic mental representations, such as propositions and images, together with a mechanism that operates on those representations. Knowledge is seen as something that is actively constructed by learners based on their existing cognitive structures. Therefore, it is relative to their stage of cognitive development; understanding the learner's existing intellectual framework is central to understanding the learning process.
Knowledge
Behaviorists maintain that knowledge is a passively absorbed behavioral repertoire. Cognitive constructivists reject that claim, arguing instead that knowledge is actively constructed by learners and that any account of knowledge makes essential references to cognitive structures. Knowledge comprises active systems of intentional mental representations derived from past learning experiences. Each learner interprets experiences and information in the light of their extant knowledge, their stage of cognitive development, their cultural background, their personal history, and so forth. Learners use these factors to organize their experience and to select and transform new information. Knowledge is therefore actively constructed by the learner rather than passively absorbed; it is essentially dependent on the standpoint from which the learner approaches it.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Analysis for Knowledge Area ELC 782 Contract / Margith A. Strand / January 17, 2010
Knowledge consists of understanding and comprehension of the processes and flow of the mechanism of the theory which is the basis of the subject matter at hand. Applicartion of the theory is the understanding, in reality terms of the terms of what exists in the world that encompasses the student's realm of structure and environment, especially in the world of Distance Education. Knowledge is Process theory with a basis of structure and relevance in the person's life. Margith A. Strand/ January 16, 2010.
Cognition is recognition, awareness of what has been learned. [M.S.]
Constructivism: which argues that humans generate knowledge and meaning from their experiences. [Wildepekia]
Distance Education must reinforce and emphasize the approach of students being able to generate knowledge..feature of critical thinking genre...graduate students can do this in DE (generate knowledge). Application theory of DE in that the theories must actively be applied to feedback the knowledge gained from their course. Cornerstone theory of project delivery and constructivistic application of course guidelines and course content use. [M.S.]
Constructivism is not a specific pedagogy. [Not my comment/ M.S.] (Wilkepedia)
[All below M.S.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________:
The following are comments on my Knowledge Area: Why is Distance Education theory based? Reductionism and Social Atomism are Agencies of Structuration theory and Adaptive Structuration Theory? Establish Reductionism and Social Atomism as parts of the concept of Agency in AST. In Skill Development Outcomes/Section B, refer to IA and IIA of Content Outcomes IA. For Skill Development Outcomes Part C, apply the concept of Constructivistic Angle of Presentations (for professional practice section)? [Rate: 10]
For the Overview Section (#2 of my points) define the difference between limitations and delimitations for the process of utilizing the technology.[Rate: 4.5]
For the development of the Dissertation section, name differences in the Structuration and Adaptive Structuration Theory. Explore the concepts behind "mobility" and Context Theory (Blog reference-MAS). [Rate: 6.5 and 9]
Explore the interactions of Distance Education and Constructivistic Theory rather than Higher Education and Distance Education, per se.
Integration of thought procedures, clarity of functional design, process analysis....just some ideas to use. [Rate: 8.7]
Platform portfolio, presentation instructional design...process analysis...logistical...mine is more theoretical in construction of theory behind Distance Education and procedure of cognitive approaches and interactions between traditional? theories such as Social Semiotic, Constructivistic, Social Constructivistic, Social Network, Adaptive Structuration Theory..:) [Rate: 10]
Moving on...Constructivistic Theory is the basis of Distance Learning and Process Theory. [Rate: 10 (out of 10)] Needs to back up! :) + :) + :)
Constructionism and Constructivistic Learning...cousins? Establish the differences? [Rate: 3 (out of 10)]
I am not into comparing theories..I am into using them to bring them out and applying them so that my ideas are lucid to the generals who can use them:)
Social network theory is visible in the Wildekepia section of Social Theory definitions (circa January 14, 2010) in my diagrammatic nodal representations.
Place to Blog:
From the Social Semiotics section: Language is constituted as ‘a discrete network of options’ (1978:113). The idea of systems and networks (systems organised as networks) proposed by Halliday before the ‘Network Society’ has applications to all aspects of Social Semiotics that are yet to be fully explored
My take on this is that In terms of Social Network theory, the elucidation of the concepts and the application of the choice of words and wording are what makes the messaging come through. It is the function of the wording and the "causation of the semiotic delivery" [M.S.] which is the important role of the terminology in the expression. Nodal connections, as mentioned in the Social Networking diagrams, are actually representative of the "function" of the causation that the words bring about [M.S.] The activity coefficients are the points of effectiveness of the wording of the messaging. [M.S.] Activity coefficients are actually, in my mind, in the Social Theory expressions, the "value" and somewhat numerical "raters" of the extent of the effectivity of the function for which the delivery is being made.
Causation...construction of the cause....meaning and delivery...function to bring about....causation...semiotic delivery...words as meaning...semiotic...Inherently, words do not have meaning...words have meaning when function thereforewith are delivered as a consequence of ....the delivery must be attached. Words have no meaning unless the word itself has meaning in the student's life...perspective and delivery...love. Part of structure and needed in its inherent necessity.
Words have definition...knowledge, comprehension and delivery of. Knowledge is ok to know...action to bring about. Construction..words have definition..delivery is where it is at...Construction of words as meanings....function.
Knowledge
Behaviorists maintain that knowledge is a passively absorbed behavioral repertoire. Cognitive constructivists reject that claim, arguing instead that knowledge is actively constructed by learners and that any account of knowledge makes essential references to cognitive structures. Knowledge comprises active systems of intentional mental representations derived from past learning experiences. Each learner interprets experiences and information in the light of their extant knowledge, their stage of cognitive development, their cultural background, their personal history, and so forth. Learners use these factors to organize their experience and to select and transform new information. Knowledge is therefore actively constructed by the learner rather than passively absorbed; it is essentially dependent on the standpoint from which the learner approaches it.
Social Atomism is something that expresses the theory of independence and self-construction in that the idea revolves around the importance of individualism and, in my mind self-reliance. I am approaching this theory within the context of Distance Education and Distance Learning.
Here we are!
Good Morning! The way to construct the method of delivery is to set the schedule.
Reward thyself and consider the need...for the construct of the curricula delivery and the consideration of the goals and the outcome in mind.
Ciao for now!
Margith:)
Reward thyself and consider the need...for the construct of the curricula delivery and the consideration of the goals and the outcome in mind.
Ciao for now!
Margith:)
Monday, February 8, 2010
Good Morning!/ Margith Strand
The construction of the self is something that takes time and effort. That effort is placed into the person's life from the perspective of the external influence as well as the internal influence. The difference and the component which makes the difference is the parameter of choice. Choice is something that is deterministic and determined by the person's environment. I have found this class to be constructive in that my ideas have been appreciated by the class as well as the Instructor. The Instructor has been of the perfect choice for the curriculum of the course in that she has involved herself in the parts of the class as much as ourselves and shared with us her ideas and her delivery of her experience in the subject matter.
Our insecurities are something that is inherent and integral in the construction of the personality and the choice of the lives which we lead daily. The lives which we lead are and have been of challenge and learning; I wonder if it has not been harder than it should have been...really. Considering that we are who we are and the choices and the ways that we are have been of our choice...to a point...will lead one to note that if I...were...we..were..to do it all over again...I know the parts that I would leave out.
Our insecurities are something that is inherent and integral in the construction of the personality and the choice of the lives which we lead daily. The lives which we lead are and have been of challenge and learning; I wonder if it has not been harder than it should have been...really. Considering that we are who we are and the choices and the ways that we are have been of our choice...to a point...will lead one to note that if I...were...we..were..to do it all over again...I know the parts that I would leave out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)