Thank you, I am using very similar concepts in my practice to accompany the transformation of Residential Child Care programs in Italy. The systemic view can have many different interpretations. So many people claim to use a systemic framework, but then, what I see in their practice is linearity, the idea of separated phases (you have first to observe, than plan, then evaluate) and "best practices" is dominant in the field. Responsiveness and reflexivity are my keywords. I am tracking your work, really very useful.
Thanks very much for sharing this very thorough and considered response to the referenced article by Prof Mike Jackson (which is also worth reading in full), and for bringing these issues out to the public debate - also using this format, rather than limiting it to academic journals - it's great, and ensures a much wider audience! It is a really important discussion, and looking forward to how it unfolds further, and to Prof Jackson's response.
Agreed. I am thankful for the way he chose to share his thoughts- especially using as much plain English as possible. Plus it's not behind a paywall as so many academic works are.
Michael, I appreciate your critique effort and I like a couple of points on pragmatism. However, I can't weigh this evidence well given a few big misses in the base understanding of CST and CSP (easily addressed by reading more Jackson). Hence, I empathize with your "concern" about more pointed remarks about "evaluation" after such a major career contribution, but your use of terms like "dangerous" and "empty" are discursive distortions that need to be addressed on more equal terms. I am glad to see there is an upcoming debate on this with Jackson on the 27th Feb 23. This will be useful to get both views meeting on more robust Habermasian grounds, offering a more wholesome critique opportunity for all. While interesting, this medium for dialectic is a genuine example of one side of the story.
The goal for the pseudo intellectuals is to plan the future, to remove as much freedom of choice as possible. To build a rigid framework of predictable outcomes. The problem is imagination. Intellectuals seldom create the future they imagine because the future is emergent and plans are foolish. All plans work at the level of simple and begin to break down as they approach complicated. When we get to the level of complexity, there are no useful plans, only ethical principles and wise conduct. It's not the horizon, it's the direction that matters.
Embodied; cognition is not just computation. Embedded; cognition relies on what we are connected to. Enacted; is a cogitative relationship between expression and experience. Extended; cognition can be transmuted into alien forms of expression and experience. Emanation: to issue forth out of a source. Emergence: a collective principle of organization. Emotive; energizing feelings and behaviors.
Thank you, I am using very similar concepts in my practice to accompany the transformation of Residential Child Care programs in Italy. The systemic view can have many different interpretations. So many people claim to use a systemic framework, but then, what I see in their practice is linearity, the idea of separated phases (you have first to observe, than plan, then evaluate) and "best practices" is dominant in the field. Responsiveness and reflexivity are my keywords. I am tracking your work, really very useful.
Thank you so much for taking the time out to respond to Prof Mike Jackson. This video is so useful and I will be sharing it widely.
Thanks very much for sharing this very thorough and considered response to the referenced article by Prof Mike Jackson (which is also worth reading in full), and for bringing these issues out to the public debate - also using this format, rather than limiting it to academic journals - it's great, and ensures a much wider audience! It is a really important discussion, and looking forward to how it unfolds further, and to Prof Jackson's response.
I agree. I think this should be required viewing for all evaluators and anyone else with an interest in evaluation. Thank you MQP!
Agreed. I am thankful for the way he chose to share his thoughts- especially using as much plain English as possible. Plus it's not behind a paywall as so many academic works are.
Michael, I appreciate your critique effort and I like a couple of points on pragmatism. However, I can't weigh this evidence well given a few big misses in the base understanding of CST and CSP (easily addressed by reading more Jackson). Hence, I empathize with your "concern" about more pointed remarks about "evaluation" after such a major career contribution, but your use of terms like "dangerous" and "empty" are discursive distortions that need to be addressed on more equal terms. I am glad to see there is an upcoming debate on this with Jackson on the 27th Feb 23. This will be useful to get both views meeting on more robust Habermasian grounds, offering a more wholesome critique opportunity for all. While interesting, this medium for dialectic is a genuine example of one side of the story.
Very helpful! Thank you so much!
The goal for the pseudo intellectuals is to plan the future, to remove as much freedom of choice as possible. To build a rigid framework of predictable outcomes. The problem is imagination. Intellectuals seldom create the future they imagine because the future is emergent and plans are foolish. All plans work at the level of simple and begin to break down as they approach complicated. When we get to the level of complexity, there are no useful plans, only ethical principles and wise conduct. It's not the horizon, it's the direction that matters.
Embodied; cognition is not just computation.
Embedded; cognition relies on what we are connected to.
Enacted; is a cogitative relationship between expression and experience.
Extended; cognition can be transmuted into alien forms of expression and experience.
Emanation: to issue forth out of a source.
Emergence: a collective principle of organization.
Emotive; energizing feelings and behaviors.