Różnice

Różnice między wybraną wersją a wersją aktualną.

--- conferences:cogsys2021 [2021/11/05 16:27] – zubekj
+++ conferences:cogsys2021 [2021/12/07 22:25] (aktualna) – zubekj
@@ Linia 20: / Linia 20: @@
 O agentowych modelach emergencji języka: które ich założenia pochodzą bardziej od koncepcji komunikacji Shannona, a które od konwencji Lewisa?
-[[conferences:agent_based_models_of_language_emergence|Agent-based models of language emergence -- what is still missing? (JZ & JRL)]]
+[[conferences:agent_based_models_of_language_emergence|Computational models of language emergence -- what is still missing? (JZ & JRL)]]
+----
+===== Building intersubjective knowledge and inclusive narratives – together =====
+**Abstract**
+Engaged empirical research conducted with, and co-leaded by, autistic (Williams 2020) or alaryngeal (Zieliński 2021) participants show that direct involvement of all people present in particular interaction provide opportunities to study the situations in which truly “human knowing” manifests itself. “Take knowing what is going on with someone from seeing the way they lift their gaze, how to build workable cities, how to read, write, and listen. Take knowing how to make maple syrup, knowing how to tame a fox, how to make ideas felt in poetry, music, or dancing, or how to playfully move between experientially different worlds” (De Jaegher 2017). It is this concrete, risky, situated, and inherently ethical form of knowing (De Jaegher 2021) which is the most important, and extremely interesting, also for me.
+However, for some time I struggle with the question: HOW to build knowledge about experiencing laryngectomy in a way which would be inclusive, participatory and strive for the values I believe in as a person and as a researcher (e.g. justice, well being, scientific rigour, richness of data, preserving real phenomena). The dominant narratives in research on laryngectomy are developed by doctors and engineers (I refer to it as “biophysical perspective”) and therefore lack the lived experience perspective of alaryngeal individuals. I claim that incorporation of embodied knowledge of larynx amputees – people directly involved in communicative situations in which at least one person is missing an organ responsible for voiced speech – could be beneficial for mainstream science.
+I wish to discuss with you my preliminary ideas to tackle the aforementioned problem:
+) text, image or video-mediated narratives (see e.g. the use of ethnographic creative non-fiction by Williams, 2020),
+) teaching practical skills utilizing our bodily incorporeality to evoke directed evolution of embodied knowledge (see e.g. interpretation of sailors' behaviour by McLaren, 2002).
+) participatory workshop form of interaction investigation (see e.g. PRISMA framework; De Jaegher et al 2017).
+I am also open to discuss other ways of building intersubjective knowledge together, and possible directions of work towards inclusive, participatory narratives on laryngectomy and other issues sharing similar methodological difficulties.
+References
+. De Jaegher Hanne, Pieper Barbara, Clénin Daniel and Fuchs Thomas, 2017 Grasping intersubjectivity: an invitation to embody social interaction research. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.
+. De Jaegher Hanne 2019, Loving and knowing: reflections for an engaged epistemology, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.
+. Maclaren Kym, 2002, Intercorporeality, Intersubjectivity and the Problem of “Letting Others Be.” Chiasmi International.
+. Williams Gemma Louise 2020, Talking together at the edge of meaning: Mutual (mis)understanding between autistic and non-autistic speakers, PhD Thesis, University of Brighton.
+. Zieliński Konrad 2021, Integrating perspectives on perturbed communication: a case study of two alaryngeal speakers and their interactions, Master Thesis, University of Warsaw.
+[[:Building intersubjective knowledge and inclusive narratives – together|Building intersubjective knowledge and inclusive narratives – together]]
 ----
 ~~DISCUSSION~~
+===== Agency in social interactions =====
+author: Ewa Nagórska
+contact: //[[e.nagorska@student.uw.edu.pl|Ewa Nagórska]]//
+presentation details: [[peripatetic21nagorska|Agency in social interactions, 10th Peri]]
+Bibliography:
+  * Ahearn, L. 2001. Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30:1, 109-137
+  * Di Paolo, E., Cuffari, E., and De Jaegher, H. 2018. Linguistic bodies: The Continuity between Life and Language. MIT Press.
+  * Fantasia V, Markova G, Fasulo A, Costall, A. and Reddy, V. 2016. Not Just Being Lifted: Infants are Sensitive to Delay During a Pick-Up Routine. Front. Psychol.6:2065.
+  * Gallagher, S. 2012, 'Multiple aspects in the sense of agency', New Ideas in Psychology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 15-31.
+  * Kabeer, N. 1999. Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women's Empowerment. Development and Change 30(3), p. 435-464.
+  * Reddy, V., Markova, G., and Wallot, S. 2013. Anticipatory adjustments to being picked up in infancy. PLoS ONE 8:e65289.
+  * Stilwell P, Harman K. Phenomenological Research Needs to be Renewed: Time to Integrate Enactivism as a Flexible Resource. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2021, Online First.
+----
+~~DISCUSSIONS~~