We can work it out: an enactive look at cooperation

The past years have seen an increasing debate on cooperation and its unique human character. Philosophers and psychologists have proposed that cooperative activities are characterized by shared goals to which participants are committed through the ability to understand each other’s intentions. Despite its popularity, some serious issues arise with this approach to cooperation. First, one may challenge the assumption that high-level mental processes are necessary for engaging in acting cooperatively. If they are, then how do agents that do not possess such ability (preverbal children, or children with autism who are often claimed to be mind-blind) engage in cooperative exchanges, as the evidence suggests? Secondly, to define cooperation as the result of two de-contextualized minds reading each other’s intentions may fail to fully acknowledge the complexity of situated, interactional dynamics and the interplay of variables such as the participants’ relational and personal history and experience. In this paper we challenge such accounts of cooperation, calling for an embodied approach that sees cooperation not only as an individual attitude toward the other, but also as a property of interaction processes. Taking an enactive perspective, we argue that cooperation is an intrinsic part of any interaction, and that there can be cooperative interaction before complex communicative abilities are achieved. The issue then is not whether one is able or not to read the other’s intentions, but what it takes to participate in joint action. From this basic account, it should be possible to build up more complex forms of cooperation as needed. Addressing the study of cooperation in these terms may enhance our understanding of human social development, and foster our knowledge of different ways of engaging with others, as in the case of autism

Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide

Background Healthcare delivery is largely accomplished in and through conversations between people, and healthcare quality and effectiveness depend enormously upon the communication practices employed within these conversations. An important body of evidence about these practices has been generated by conversation analysis and related discourse analytic approaches, but there has been very little systematic reviewing of this evidence. Methods We developed an approach to reviewing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research through the following procedures: • reviewing existing systematic review methods and our own prior experience of applying these • clarifying distinctive features of conversation analytic and related discursive work which must be taken into account when reviewing • holding discussions within a review advisory team that included members with expertise in healthcare research, conversation analytic research, and systematic reviewing • attempting and then refining procedures through conducting an actual review which examined evidence about how people talk about difficult future issues including illness progression and dying Results We produced a step-by-step guide which we describe here in terms of eight stages, and which we illustrate from our ‘Review of Future Talk’. The guide incorporates both established procedures for systematic reviewing, and new techniques designed for working with conversation analytic evidence. Conclusions The guide is designed to inform systematic reviews of conversation analytic and related discursive evidence on specific domains and topics. Whilst we designed it for reviews that aim at informing healthcare practice and policy, it is flexible and could be used for reviews with other aims, for instance those aiming to underpin research programmes and projects. We advocate systematically reviewing conversation analytic and related discursive findings using this approach in order to translate them into a form that is credible and useful to healthcare practitioners, educators and policy-makers

Are there just two people in a dyad? Dyadic configurations in multiparty family conversations

Dyadic interaction does not necessarily imply that just two people are present. It is often possible to single out episodes of dyadic interaction in multiparty contexts that we analyse, such as family dinner table conversation. Within such a speech event, multiparty participation framework (variously organized) is the default conversational structure. Consequently, a groundwork is required for participants to gain space and exclusivity for a dyadic exchange. This paper shows how dyadic framework is made out of the multiparty default interactional structure of a family dinner. Furthermore, we analyze the resources participants deploy to protect the dyadic exchange from anothers intrusion and/or from the risk of desertion of one member of the dyad. Young and older children actively participate in that activity and learn to manage it through diverse dyadic settings. It is not the number of participants that unequivocally determines whether an interaction is dyadic or multiparty. Varying and complex participation frameworks, alliances, and challenges are built and transformed within family dinner conversation; it is in their locus of the interactive organization of ongoing activity in which children are socialized to a complex socio-cognitive activity. (DIPF/orig.)Eine Interaktion in Dyaden bedeutet nicht notwendig, dass nur zwei Personen anwesend sind. Oft ist es möglich, Abschnitte in dyadischen Interaktionen aus Kontexten zu isolieren, an denen mehrere Personen beteiligt sind. Ein Beispiel ist das Gespräch am familiären Mittagstisch, das wir in diesem Beitrag analysiert wird. Bei einem solchen Gesprächsanlass besteht die normale Konversationsstruktur darin, dass in einem unterschiedlich organisierten Rahmen mehrere Personen beteiligt sind. Deshalb braucht es Durchsetzungsvermögen, um Raum und Exklusivität für einen dyadischen Austausch zu gewinnen. Diese Arbeit zeigt, wie der dyadische Rahmen aus der Interaktionsstruktur mehrerer Beteiligter beim Familienmittag herausgearbeitet wird. Darüber hinaus analysieren wir die Ressourcen, die die Beteiligten einsetzen, um den dyadischen Austausch vor Eingriffen anderer und / oder vor dem Riskiko des Verlassens der Dyade durch ein Mitglied zu schützen. Jüngere und ältere Kinder nehmen aktiv an diesen Handlungen teil und lernen gleichzeitig durch diverse dyadische Situationen solche Aktivitäten zu beherrschen. Es ist nicht die Anzahl der Beteiligten, die letztlich bestimmt, ob eine Interaktion dyadisch ist oder aus mehreren Mitgliedern besteht. Unterschiedliche und komplexe Beteiligungsrahmen, Allianzen und Herausforderungen werden während des mittäglichen Familiengesprächs gestaltet und verändert; genau in dieser interaktiven Umgebung ständiger Aktivität erfolgt die Sozialisation der Kinder in das komplexe sozio-kognitive Handeln. (DIPF/Orig.

Hablemos de enología: Elaboración de cerveza artesanal

El presente webinar fue dictado por la Licenciada Veronica Ramirez Sterponi, Jefe de cerveceros y jefe del Departamento de calidad de Cervecería 23Rios CraftBeer y organizado por la Facultad de Ingeniería y enología, en el marco de un ciclo de capacitaciones cuyo objetivo explicar el proceso mediante el cual se elabora la cerveza. Podés ver también este webinar en nuestro canal de Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6xUesx_ga0&list=PLtrc2io3FDLOv4DCcuEHHAj8XSniotGAw&index=1