At the moment I am interested in doing a study of children's playful use of public space.
I am interested in aspects of environmental and ecological psychology - this goes back to my first degree studies which got me into aspects of the perceptual ecology of animals, animal behaviour and ecology, and (philosophically) the importance of biological adaptation in understanding how we intepret our environment.
I am also interested in the the non-representationalist theories of knowledge and perception and learning in the pragmatist thought of Rorty and the phenomenological approaches of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. I think these link really well with a biological/ecological approach to knowledge and experience, although there is a philosophical clash with the traditionally representationalist field of cognitive science.
All this for me comes together in the work of e.g. JJ Gibson, Daniel Dennett and Ruth Millikan, who look philosophically and scientifically at the environmental psychology of organisms. Dennett's /instrumentalist/ approach cuts through the externalist/internalist debates about where meaning is made, and at which point an organism is conscious of an object /as/ that object.
Dennett's anti-Cartesian approach to the mind and consciousness means we can be objective about subjectivity, and non-essentialist /instrumentalist about the true meaning (the environmental semantics) of objects.
This is my working title for my MPhil research project.
Many children's free time activities are playful in nature. Play is believed to be an innate and crucial part of human biological development, enabling us better to adapt to our environments and to learn new behaviours in response to changing environments, threats and challenges.
By studying the play types and human-environment interactions shown in play in an ecological intepretive framework, we are likely to observe various patterns of behaviour reflecting children's responses to: eg threats, resource limitation, competition, hierarchies; also displays of ability, various forms of verbal and non-verbal communication, competition for territory, use of objects and spaces as status icons and many other features.
I intend to do a piece of observational research of children playing in public spaces. As well as an ecological approach, I am also interested in using a psychogeographic approach to analysing their play behaviour. This would ask questions in terms of space and place, and the importance and meaning of certain places for the children.
Some questions...
How do they use the space? What meanings does the space have for them? What are its affordances physically and psychologically for them in terms of play and free activity? How does the space lend it self to creative, constructive or destructive play?
How do ethological concepts of territory, animal communication, predation, sexual communication and display, niches and competition for resources apply to this sort of environment?
In what ways can we observe young people making meaning and subverting or co-opting the signs in their environment? What objects or rituals are significant? Which rituals do not use objects but are primarily interpersonal? Which behaviours are both about commandeering the space and also demonstrating or communicating in an interpersonal way? Which objects in the environment are seen (or not seen) as insignificant? Which items are significant or totemic? How permanent is the space? Why do they choose to use and play in this space? How do they co-opt items and features into their own play in order to change or subvert their original meanings? Who owns the space? How are outsiders treated? How do age, gender and culture affect the use of the space by different groups at different times?
From a macro-scale to a micro-scale (roughly):
and re-describing
Sturrock & Else 1998 "Much can be interpreted from the interplay of the exploitation of external play objects... and internal narrative constructs."
Perception and representation are always perceiving-as and representing-as for an organism, but these as-es are only attributable by a process of analysis of behaviour or autophenomenology (Dennett).
ip: 193.61.84.99 diff-major:Changed: 2,5c2,7
< At the moment I am interested in doing a study of children's playful use of public space
< I am interested in aspects of environmental psychology - this goes back to my first degree studies which got me into aspects of the perceptual ecology of animals, animal behaviour and ecology, and philosophically the importance of understanding biological adaptation in undertanding how we intepret our environment, and a non-representationalist understanding of knowledge and perception and learning based on the pragmatist thought of Rorty and the phenomenological approaches of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. I think these link really well with a scientific, biological approach, although there is some clash with a traditionally representationalist cognitive science field.
< All this for me comes together in the work of Dennett and Millikan where they they look philosophically and scientifically at the environmental psychology of organisms, and Dennett's instrumentalist approach cuts through the externalist/internalist realist debates about wher meaning is made, and at which point an organism is conscious of an object /as/ that object. Dennett's anti-Cartesian approach to the mind and consciousness means we can be objective about subjectivity, and non-essentialist /instrumentalist about the true meaning (the environmental semantics) of objects.
< ==An ecological and psychogeographic approach to studying the play behaviour of children and young people in an urban location==
to
> At the moment I am interested in doing a study of children's playful use of public space.
> I am interested in aspects of environmental and ecological psychology - this goes back to my first degree studies which got me into aspects of the perceptual ecology of animals, animal behaviour and ecology, and (philosophically) the importance of biological adaptation in understanding how we intepret our environment.
> I am also interested in the the non-representationalist theories of knowledge and perception and learning in the pragmatist thought of Rorty and the phenomenological approaches of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. I think these link really well with a biological/ecological approach to knowledge and experience, although there is a philosophical clash with the traditionally representationalist field of cognitive science.
> All this for me comes together in the work of e.g. JJ Gibson, Daniel Dennett and Ruth Millikan, who look philosophically and scientifically at the environmental psychology of organisms. Dennett's /instrumentalist/ approach cuts through the externalist/internalist debates about where meaning is made, and at which point an organism is conscious of an object /as/ that object.
> Dennett's anti-Cartesian approach to the mind and consciousness means we can be objective about subjectivity, and non-essentialist /instrumentalist about the true meaning (the environmental semantics) of objects.
> ==An ecological and geographic approach to studying the play behaviour of children and young people in urban locations==
Changed: 7,12c9,15
< I believe that many children's free time activities are playful in nature (play has been shown to be an innate and crucial part of human biological development, and that by studying the play types and human-environment interactions shown in free play we can see --- what?! I'm not sure at this point if I am just trying to do a self-fulfilling self-referential piece which only proves its own starting assumptions, or whether there are new insights and new methods which could arise from such a piece of observational research. I'm not sure this type of research gets us anywhere.
< I'm not sure what the goal of this research is other than for me to explore my own beliefs and philosophies, but without questioning and validating those, you are left with a fairly useless and non-transferable piece of work. Or is all research like this? How much research is really built on unstated assumptions? Kuhnians would say it all takes place within a paradigm, but some paradigms are more widely-accepted than others.
< I intend to do a piece of observational research of children playing in public spaces, and I would aim to bring a psychogeographic approach to analysing their play behaviour. How do they use the space? What meanings does the space have for them? What are its affordances physcially and psychologically for them in terms of play and free activity? How does the space lend it self to creative, constructive or destructive play? How do ethological concepts of territory, animal communication, predation, sexual communication and display, niches and competition for resources apply to this sort of environment? In what ways can we observe young people making meaning and subverting or c-opting the signs in their environment the signs in their environment? What objects or rituals are significant? Which rituals do not use objects but are primarily interpersonal? Which behaviours are both about commandeering the space and also demonstrating or communicating in an interpersonal way? Which objects in the environment are seen (or not seen) as insignificant? Which items are significant or totemic? How permanent is the space? Why do they choose to use and play in this space? How do they co-opt items and features into their own play in order to change or subvert their original meanings? Who owns the space? How are outsiders treated? How do age, gender and culture affect the use of the space by different groups at different times?
< ==Key quotes and concepts==
< Sturrock & Else 1998 "Much can be interpreted from the interplay of the exploitation of external play objects... and internal narrative constructs."
< Perception and representation are always perceiving-as and representing-as for an organism, butthis is as-es are only attributable by a process of analysis of behaviour or autophenomenology (Dennett).
to
> Many children's free time activities are playful in nature. Play is believed to be an innate and crucial part of human biological development, enabling us better to adapt to our environments and to learn new behaviours in response to changing environments, threats and challenges.
> By studying the play types and human-environment interactions shown in play in an ecological intepretive framework, we are likely to observe various patterns of behaviour reflecting children's responses to: eg threats, resource limitation, competition, hierarchies; also displays of ability, various forms of verbal and non-verbal communication, competition for territory, use of objects and spaces as status icons and many other features.
> I intend to do a piece of observational research of children playing in public spaces. As well as an ecological approach, I am also interested in using a psychogeographic approach to analysing their play behaviour. This would ask questions in terms of space and place, and the importance and meaning of certain places for the children.
> Some questions...
> How do they use the space? What meanings does the space have for them? What are its affordances physically and psychologically for them in terms of play and free activity? How does the space lend it self to creative, constructive or destructive play?
> How do ethological concepts of territory, animal communication, predation, sexual communication and display, niches and competition for resources apply to this sort of environment?
> In what ways can we observe young people making meaning and subverting or co-opting the signs in their environment? What objects or rituals are significant? Which rituals do not use objects but are primarily interpersonal? Which behaviours are both about commandeering the space and also demonstrating or communicating in an interpersonal way? Which objects in the environment are seen (or not seen) as insignificant? Which items are significant or totemic? How permanent is the space? Why do they choose to use and play in this space? How do they co-opt items and features into their own play in order to change or subvert their original meanings? Who owns the space? How are outsiders treated? How do age, gender and culture affect the use of the space by different groups at different times?
Changed: 30c33,37
< * Meaning making and re-describing
to
> * Meaning making
> and re-describing
> ==Key quotes and concepts==
> Sturrock & Else 1998 "Much can be interpreted from the interplay of the exploitation of external play objects... and internal narrative constructs."
> Perception and representation are always perceiving-as and representing-as for an organism, but these as-es are only attributable by a process of analysis of behaviour or autophenomenology (Dennett).
Changed: 2,5c2,7
< At the moment I am interested in doing a study of children's playful use of public space
< I am interested in aspects of environmental psychology - this goes back to my first degree studies which got me into aspects of the perceptual ecology of animals, animal behaviour and ecology, and philosophically the importance of understanding biological adaptation in undertanding how we intepret our environment, and a non-representationalist understanding of knowledge and perception and learning based on the pragmatist thought of Rorty and the phenomenological approaches of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. I think these link really well with a scientific, biological approach, although there is some clash with a traditionally representationalist cognitive science field.
< All this for me comes together in the work of Dennett and Millikan where they they look philosophically and scientifically at the environmental psychology of organisms, and Dennett's instrumentalist approach cuts through the externalist/internalist realist debates about where meaning is made, and at which point an organism is conscious of an object /as/ that object. Dennett's anti-Cartesian approach to the mind and consciousness means we can be objective about subjectivity, and non-essentialist /instrumentalist about the true meaning (the environmental semantics) of objects.
< ==An ecological and psychogeographic approach to studying the play behaviour of children and young people in an urban location==
to
> At the moment I am interested in doing a study of children's playful use of public space.
> I am interested in aspects of environmental and ecological psychology - this goes back to my first degree studies which got me into aspects of the perceptual ecology of animals, animal behaviour and ecology, and (philosophically) the importance of biological adaptation in understanding how we intepret our environment.
> I am also interested in the the non-representationalist theories of knowledge and perception and learning in the pragmatist thought of Rorty and the phenomenological approaches of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. I think these link really well with a biological/ecological approach to knowledge and experience, although there is a philosophical clash with the traditionally representationalist field of cognitive science.
> All this for me comes together in the work of e.g. JJ Gibson, Daniel Dennett and Ruth Millikan, who look philosophically and scientifically at the environmental psychology of organisms. Dennett's /instrumentalist/ approach cuts through the externalist/internalist debates about where meaning is made, and at which point an organism is conscious of an object /as/ that object.
> Dennett's anti-Cartesian approach to the mind and consciousness means we can be objective about subjectivity, and non-essentialist /instrumentalist about the true meaning (the environmental semantics) of objects.
> ==An ecological and geographic approach to studying the play behaviour of children and young people in urban locations==
Changed: 7,12c9,15
< I believe that many children's free time activities are playful in nature (play has been shown to be an innate and crucial part of human biological development), and that by studying the play types and human-environment interactions shown in free play we can see --- what?! I'm not sure at this point if I am just trying to do a self-fulfilling self-referential piece which only proves its own starting assumptions, or whether there are new insights and new methods which could arise from such a piece of observational research. I'm not sure this type of research gets us anywhere.
< I'm not sure what the goal of this research is other than for me to explore my own beliefs and philosophies, but without questioning and validating those, you are left with a fairly useless and non-transferable piece of work. Or is all research like this? How much research is really built on unstated assumptions? Kuhnians would say it all takes place within a paradigm, but some paradigms are more widely-accepted than others.
< I intend to do a piece of observational research of children playing in public spaces, and I would aim to bring a psychogeographic approach to analysing their play behaviour. How do they use the space? What meanings does the space have for them? What are its affordances physically and psychologically for them in terms of play and free activity? How does the space lend it self to creative, constructive or destructive play? How do ethological concepts of territory, animal communication, predation, sexual communication and display, niches and competition for resources apply to this sort of environment? In what ways can we observe young people making meaning and subverting or co-opting the signs in their environment? What objects or rituals are significant? Which rituals do not use objects but are primarily interpersonal? Which behaviours are both about commandeering the space and also demonstrating or communicating in an interpersonal way? Which objects in the environment are seen (or not seen) as insignificant? Which items are significant or totemic? How permanent is the space? Why do they choose to use and play in this space? How do they co-opt items and features into their own play in order to change or subvert their original meanings? Who owns the space? How are outsiders treated? How do age, gender and culture affect the use of the space by different groups at different times?
< ==Key quotes and concepts==
< Sturrock & Else 1998 "Much can be interpreted from the interplay of the exploitation of external play objects... and internal narrative constructs."
< Perception and representation are always perceiving-as and representing-as for an organism, but these as-es are only attributable by a process of analysis of behaviour or autophenomenology (Dennett).
to
> Many children's free time activities are playful in nature. Play is believed to be an innate and crucial part of human biological development, enabling us better to adapt to our environments and to learn new behaviours in response to changing environments, threats and challenges.
> By studying the play types and human-environment interactions shown in play in an ecological intepretive framework, we are likely to observe various patterns of behaviour reflecting children's responses to: eg threats, resource limitation, competition, hierarchies; also displays of ability, various forms of verbal and non-verbal communication, competition for territory, use of objects and spaces as status icons and many other features.
> I intend to do a piece of observational research of children playing in public spaces. As well as an ecological approach, I am also interested in using a psychogeographic approach to analysing their play behaviour. This would ask questions in terms of space and place, and the importance and meaning of certain places for the children.
> Some questions...
> How do they use the space? What meanings does the space have for them? What are its affordances physically and psychologically for them in terms of play and free activity? How does the space lend it self to creative, constructive or destructive play?
> How do ethological concepts of territory, animal communication, predation, sexual communication and display, niches and competition for resources apply to this sort of environment?
> In what ways can we observe young people making meaning and subverting or co-opting the signs in their environment? What objects or rituals are significant? Which rituals do not use objects but are primarily interpersonal? Which behaviours are both about commandeering the space and also demonstrating or communicating in an interpersonal way? Which objects in the environment are seen (or not seen) as insignificant? Which items are significant or totemic? How permanent is the space? Why do they choose to use and play in this space? How do they co-opt items and features into their own play in order to change or subvert their original meanings? Who owns the space? How are outsiders treated? How do age, gender and culture affect the use of the space by different groups at different times?
Changed: 30c33,37
< * Meaning making and re-describing
to
> * Meaning making
> and re-describing
> ==Key quotes and concepts==
> Sturrock & Else 1998 "Much can be interpreted from the interplay of the exploitation of external play objects... and internal narrative constructs."
> Perception and representation are always perceiving-as and representing-as for an organism, but these as-es are only attributable by a process of analysis of behaviour or autophenomenology (Dennett).