Comments for PhD Blog (dot) Net

Comment on However… by virginia Yonkers

virginia Yonkers — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:33:27 +0000

To gain an understanding of why those tools aren’t transferable, I’d look at C. Goodwin (1994) Professional Vision, American Anthopologist, New Series, 96 (3), 606-633. This article explains how the tools are developed and handed down within the professions, thus making it difficult to transfer from one discipline to another (I think I’ve given you this citation before).

Comment on Mythologising the Online Community by virginia Yonkers

virginia Yonkers — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:10:39 +0000

I like Henri’s categories for communities. She distinguishes the purposes for an online group that then develops into a “community”. I do think there is a distinction between “community” and “network” that can be made on a psychological level. The level of belonging makes that distinction.

Comment on Mythologising the Online Community by Mark Johnson

Mark Johnson — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:15:09 +0000

Hi Andy,

thanks for this (sorry you weren’t able to comment on blogger – a few people have had problems, and I need to look into it… )

I’m thinking my way through this, but I think we need to re-examine our distinctions. Conflation of terms like ‘community’ leads to bad theory… which I see as the real problem in education.

Personally, I think ‘meaning’ is more useful to think about rather than ‘community’. I’m not saying that online communications are not meaningful, (obviously they are) I’m arguing that it’s misleading to use the term ‘community’ just because something appears meaningful. I’ll look into the Baumann reference.. didn’t know it…

cheers,

Mark

Comment on (R)Evolution in the Head? by virginia Yonkers

virginia Yonkers — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:32:05 +0000

I bring this up because I have come up against this wall as I have moved from Business to ESL to International business to Education and finally, into Communication (which actually has had the least amount of barriers to enter into the domain). You are correct: my ideas were accepted once I learned the “language” of the domain.

However, the barrier I’m coming up against currently is my age. There is a perception that older people are not creative nor do they have innovative or creative ideas because they draw on experience. Yet, I integrate a new technology or topic into my current classes each semester. I have developed and taught 20 new syllabi or courses in the last 21 years. I’m the go-to person when they need someone new to teach a course.

Comment on (R)Evolution in the Head? by Andy Coverdale

Andy Coverdale — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:42:55 +0000

Thanks Virginia. Some interesting points.

I wonder how much we are ‘allowed’ to draw on previous domain knowledge and practices as we became socialised into a new learning / working environment. Perhaps creative insights from the previous discipline / career are manifest as ‘thinking out of the box’ in the new environment. But do these remain frivolous or inappropriate until they are translated into the ‘language’ of the new domain, which can only be achieved when we have become socialised into the norms and values that give meaning to them?

Which partly backs up your second point. If the effectiveness or value of the creativity can only be realised through ‘political savvy’ then yes, it is integral to the creative process, even if an incremental approach might seem contradictory to common perceptions of innovation.

How useful is ‘being creative’ if we are not empowered to enact it?

Comment on (R)Evolution in the Head? by virginia Yonkers

virginia Yonkers — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:11:22 +0000

So here are two additional factors to think about. What about the person that reinvents his or her self at age 50? They are new in their 2nd career but will they be influenced by the domain knowledge of their former career thus limiting ‘everyday’ or ‘low range creativity’ that accounts for spontaneity or expressiveness – at least on cognitive developmental terms – though these may be considered peripheral in their contribution to domain knowledge.

The second thing I have observed is that older workers know when to fight the fight for a new idea and how to create change in increments as they know most organizations and people are resistant to change. Are they less creative or more politically savvy in order to get their creative ideas implemented?

Comment on The Elusiveness of Flow by (R)Evolution in the Head? | PhD Blog (dot) Net

(R)Evolution in the Head? | PhD Blog (dot) Net — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:06:55 +0000

[...] Related post: The Elusiveness of Flow [...]

Comment on The Commodity Fetishism of Social Capital by virginia Yonkers

virginia Yonkers — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:25:53 +0000

The idea that has been bouncing around my head lately is the hole idea of “social capital” being another term for people and relationships. The fact is that “capital” comes out of “capitalism” and the industrialized world, in which “human capital” are people in the cogs of the economy and “social capital” are attributes those people can contribute to the industrial process. The assumption is that these attributes can be culled for use by others (usually the corporation) to economic gain.

However, isn’t it time we left the 1790′s of Adam Smith and his industrial world and created a new economic theory (as Adam Smith did when Europe moved out of the agrarian economy into the industrial world) ?

Comment on Blogrolling by Andy Coverdale

Andy Coverdale — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:57:35 +0000

Hi Susan. Anything in particular?

Comment on Blogrolling by susan beaumont

susan beaumont — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:22:45 +0000

Hi!

I am a historian making the transition to a history Phd from an art background. I would appreciate your expertise on several related themes!