Dear Ben,
This may be a confusing answer-I hope not.
Re Symbolic Interactionism, I donıt know of an explicitly S.I. literature in
my fieldinformation and communication.
I would say that one important question about S.I.is or reason relates to
how high or low level oneıs interests are. If one is working in the universe
of symbols, and attitudes, it is a congenial methodology. But if, for
example, one is working on the level of Human computer Interaction, in which
one is concerned with the human interpretation of computer behavior-
especially if it is not linguistic behavior- this may be a challenge. You
need to be able to interpret: classify and code behaviors into symbolic
spaces. For that, the theory will need to be extended by forging linkages
that it does not make clear.
The question really is how tightly you want to define S.I. For my kind of
research, at least, by itself, S.I. is persistently metaphorical: it cannot
be determinately and unequivocally connected to the design levels I look at:
not simply about how symbols are used but how they are constructed to be
interpreted or apprehended in a particular way by users.
S.I. Comes from C.S. Peirce and John Dewey, through G.H.Mead. It represents
a major orientation in sociology and social psych. In that sense you will
find it "everywhere" whether the authors are aware of it or not. For design
or quasi-design uses, I would be looking at studies that do not see
themselves as S.I. to see what orientations they share with it. For example,
Osgood and Tannenbaumıs ³The Measurement of Meaning² as well as Osgoodıs
work on cross-cultural evaluative universals fit well within this general
perspective. I want to avoid the larger questions of constructivism, but I
would call Piagetıs developmental psychology and Maturanaıs ³Autopoesis and
Cognition² symbolic interactionist.
I am presuming that you are interested in using S.I.. If so, I would keep
track of the following two relevant aspects of Meadıs formulation:
1. It separates affect from ³thought, and excludes affect. For Mead it is a
matter of doctrine that only thought has the status of ³cognition².
2. It is language based.
Others since have addressed the issue of affect, specifically Havid Heise
(Understanding Events), who invented affect control theory, and Neil
Mackinnon (Symbolic Interactionism as Affect Control). Their work
demonstrates the tractability of affect as an analytic point of view on
social interaction. This can be important if user experience or
phenomenology is important in a design. But, their analysis is on the levels
of words, and it may not be clear how to apply it in a design framework.
One may find it necessary to ground S.I., most appropriately I think in an
epistemologically appropriate cognitive psychology. Piagetıs ³The
Equilibration of Cognitive Structures² is an example. Something like it may
be needed to get from physical aspects to the symbolic. This sort of base
makes S.I. powerful by grounding it, but if so, then the question is whether
the S.I. language is uniquely valuable, now that one can directly look at
perception, thought, memory, etc. It may be easier to incorporate ist
findings into another discourse.
I hope this helps. Let me know if what you find agrees with this or refutes
it. That would be interesting to know.
Peter Storkerson
|