Goal-oriented Dialog as a Collaborative Subordinated Activity involving Collective Acceptance

International audienceModeling dialog as a collaborative activity consists notably in specifying the content of the Conversational Common Ground and the kind of social mental state involved. In previous work (Saget, 2006), we claim that Collective Acceptance is the proper social attitude for modeling Conversational Common Ground in the particular case of goal-oriented dialog. In this paper, a formalization of Collective Acceptance is shown, besides elements in order to integrate this attitude in a rational model of dialog are provided; and finally, a model of referential acts as being part of a collaborative activity is presented. The particular case of reference has been chosen in order to exemplify our claims

Goal-oriented Dialog as a Collaborative Subordinated Activity involving Collective Acceptance

International audienceModeling dialog as a collaborative activity consists notably in specifying the content of the Conversational Common Ground and the kind of social mental state involved. In previous work (Saget, 2006), we claim that Collective Acceptance is the proper social attitude for modeling Conversational Common Ground in the particular case of goal-oriented dialog. In this paper, a formalization of Collective Acceptance is shown, besides elements in order to integrate this attitude in a rational model of dialog are provided; and finally, a model of referential acts as being part of a collaborative activity is presented. The particular case of reference has been chosen in order to exemplify our claims

Using Unified Personal Information in Workspaces

Knowledge workers (KWers) deal with personal information and use tools like, e.g., desktop workspaces to support their work. But KWer support is hindered by personal information fragmentation, i.e., applications keep a set of personal information while not interconnecting it. This thesis addresses this in the domains personal task management and meeting management by using a common unified personal information model as offered by the semantic desktop personal information management (PIM) system

Social problems and collaborative planning: toward a theory and model of social planning

The concern of this dissertation is planning theory and practice; its purpose is to make planning more responsive to the problems of the city. The premise that the study is built on is that social planning must be in harmony with the nature of its subject matter, and that social problems is its subject matter. The supposition is that if we grasp the nature of social problems and build planning theory and practice on these insights, planning efforts will be more relevant and more effective. The approach is a theoretical one; social problems are the starting point. After urban problems--and poverty in particular--are examined from an historical perspective, a social systems framework is presented to clarify how problems are generated and maintained as well as to explain how responses to problems are shaped. The inquiry into the nature of social problems then draws upon sociological theory. This theoretical literature is found to focus on either the objective elements of social problems or on the subjective, that is, the process by which persons come to judge whether a condition is a social problem. Structural aspects of problems are not an important concern of the theorists. However, in this study a problem is considered as social only when its causes lie outside of individuals--when the sources or origins can be found in existing structural or institutional arrangements. Problems are conceptualized as having two dimensions: objective and subjective ones. Social problems--specifically, their objective and subjective dimensions--are related to social planning. It is contended that planning must deal with the objective elements of social problems, including structural aspects, as well as with the subjective dimensions. Or, in other words, social planning must (1) treat the structural causes of problems and also (2) address itself to the values, beliefs, definitions, etc. that obstruct social change. In addition to this theoretical linkage of social problems and social planning, the dissertation situates planning in the context of a general theory of social reality. Drawing upon the work of Berger and Luckmann (1966), planning is conceptualized as a process in which reality is socially constructed. These theoretical concepts--the objective and subjective dimensions of socia1 problems as the object of social planning and social planning as the social construction of reality-provide the basis for the model which is developed. Three components of the model are treated. First, characteristics of the process are discussed, and it is contended that the social planning process must be “task-oriented,” experimental,” “cybernetic,” dialogic, and collaborative. Second, roles and phases in the process are discussed and illustrated. : Consistent with the theoretical framework in which knowledge is considered as socially distributed, citizen, planner, and decision maker have roles in each of the planning phases. Since no one has a complete view of social reality, each is seen as having a distinct contribution to make in the task of defining the problem and its solution. Thus, resolving social problems requires that citizen, planner, and decision maker collaborate and learn from one another. The planner\u27s role is elaborated as the third aspect of the model. By planner is meant an interdisciplinary team whose role encompasses two main functions: (1) technical tasks that have traditionally belonged to the planner, and (2) interactional tasks. Although other planning theorists have outlined interactional tasks for the planner, his role in the collaborative model is “to promote mutual learning through dialog.” This role, similar to that of a process consultant, is considered unique to the collaborative planning model. Although components of the model resemble those of other models, taken together, the characteristics of the planning process, planning phases, and planning roles differ from any other model. And importantly, the planning model grows out of a theoretical analysis of social problems as well as a broad theoretical framework. The model is normative in nature, and although it is not tested empirically, it is evaluated at a theoretical level. The collaborative model and seven other planning models are assessed in terms of whether they are responsive to the nature of social problems. It is contended that the collaborative model is the only one that is responsive to the nature of social problems. This dissertation--its theoretical concepts and conceptual model-is seen as a contribution to an emerging planning paradigm--one that holds the promise that we can learn to deal effectively with the problems that confront our cities

Areas of qualitative psychology - special focus on design

This volume contains the proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of Qualitative Psychology in Blaubeuren (near Ulm, Germany) Oct., 22-24, 2003 organized by the Center for Qualitative Psychology (Tübingen, Germany). The question of Research Design was chosen as the central topic of the conference. Researchers from different professions took part. The range of experience of the participants was very heterogeneous: Beginning with young researchers, different levels of expertise were represented (up to and including very experienced scholars and researchers). Participants also came from different countries. The main work was done in small working groups. In these groups each study and its outcome(s) was critically discussed and remarked upon. Plenum lectures were also held, in which selected experts presented their thoughts on the central topic research design. An attempt is also undertaken to evaluate the findings and the workshop as a whole in the context of the development of qualitative research in psychology. Contents: Mechthild Kiegelmann, Günter L. Huber: Design in Qualitative Psychology (19-26). Designing the Move from Data to a Theory of Feeling - Gerhard Kleining: The Qualitative-Heuristic Approach to Theory (27-34); Leo Gürtler, Gerhard Kleining: Some Questions and Answers about the Qualitative-Heuristic Approach to Theory (35-38); Thomas Burkart Towards a Dialectic Theory of Feeling (39-62); Harald Witz: Questioning Burkart's Theory of Feeling (63-66); Thomas Burkart: Some Conclusions (67-68); Jeannette Bischkopf, Anna Auckenthaler, Christian Stiglmayr: The Application of a Grounded Theory-Based Research Design for Analyzing Caregiver Burden. How to Increase the Specificity of Concepts (69-80); M. Concepción Domínguez Garrid, Antonio Medina Rivilla: Qualitative Research in Intercultural Processes in the Fields of Geography and History in Secondary Education (81-98); Silke-Birgitta Gahleitner: Step by Step: The Significance of the Open Qualitative Research Process for Gender Research (99-110); Samuel Gento Palacios, M. Concepción a Domínguez Garrido, Antonio Medina Rivilla: The Axiologial Bases of a New Curricum Design (111-142); Michaela Gläser-Zikuda, Hanne Schuster: How Do Students Feel in Open and Direct Instruction? A Study with Mixed Methods (143-162); Leo Gürtler: Qualitative Video Analysis: Design of a Study on the Function of Humor in Teaching Discourses on Mindfulness (163-186); Günter L. Huber: Qualitative Analysis "cis transcriptionae": Direct Processing of Sound and Video Data (187-196); Günter L. Huber: Qualitative Methods in Evaluation Studies (197-206); Karin Jeschke: Contribution of a Modified Global Analysis to a Qualitative Heuristic Analysis (207-216); Levan Lim, Annette Ullrich: Living with Persons with Disabilities: Perspectives of L'Arche Assistants (217-234); Gunârs Strods, Liesma Ose, Tamâra Skoromka, Irîna Maslo: Collaboration in Computer Assisted Qualitative Research (235-248); Hannu Soini, Mark Flynn: The Importance of Emotion and Rhythm for Learning (249-264); Meike Watzlawik: Online Survey + Qualitative Analysis + Quantitative Results = Possible & Reasonable? (265-276)

Communication, Labor, and Communicative Labor

This project looks at the work we do to understand, to be understood, and to act on the basis of such understanding. Communicative labor is an important and under-theorized aspect of communication, and one that significantly impacts our epistemic, social and political lives. In this dissertation I take such labor as my object of analysis, and show how it bears on speakers and contexts. First I provide an analysis of labor suitable for characterizing unwaged, immaterial and reproductive labor, and argue that such an analysis helps make sense of language systems \u27 the common pool resource systems that allow speakers to communicate and act on the basis of communication. Such systems require maintenance in order to function and preserve their value. The theoretical value of a labor-based approach to language systems becomes clear when we look at conversations that don\u27t function properly. I distinguish several kinds of antagonistic interpretation that distort communication in conversation: undue skepticism, willful obtuseness, bad listening, intrusive interruption, affected misunderstanding, and ignoring. I argue that such practices, if systematic and pervasive enough, undermine valuable properties of conversations. My focus on communication as labor helps us better understand traditional concepts in philosophy of language (such as the \u27conversational scoreboard\u27 and \u27common ground\u27), but it also sheds light on more specific (and specifically subordinating) forms of speech. While antagonistic interpretation can distort conversations by making some speech more difficult (in the limit case, by silencing speakers), it can also distort conversations by making some speech easy, unwilled or automatic. Such speech plays an important role in determining the social status and political rights of agents beyond the immediate context of utterance. For instance, in 1989, after hours of interrogation in police custody, 16 year old Antron McCray confessed to a crime he did not commit. McCray\u27s utterances formed the linchpin of his wrongful conviction as part of the Central Park Five. I discuss such cases as object lessons in the management of effort against speakers in conversation. In some discourse contexts, agents come to produce locutions not on the basis of reasoning about how and whether to speak, but on the basis of constrained alternatives to doing so. In such cases, an agent produces speech, but only at the expense of having her communicative agency compromised. I call such speech extracted speech, and focus on the role it plays in distributing communicative labor and power in institutional contexts