Search

While reflexivity has become central to the fields of professional training and learning, it has not been a central focus in the research conducted during the course of action program. In studying the experience of debriefing in psychotherapy training, we focused on "reflexive practices" of returning in the present to a past moment of activity. To achieve this, we used the enactive concept of "distinction" and developed the related notions of remanent structures and narrative and conceptual chains. This allowed us to define different types of "remembering", the retrieval in the present of moments of past experience. The results show, during the debriefing, a circulation between the different forms of construction of remanent structures and of remembering, as well as a multi-temporality of the experience which does not reduce it to the temporal horizons of the debriefing and of the analysed situation. These results open up the debriefings to objectives and temporalities broader than those usually assigned to them. Furthermore, the enrichment of the theoretical and analytical framework of the course of action program allows us to address reflexivity, abstraction and conceptualisation, and thus to better identify what brings it closer to or differentiates it from professional didactics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While reflexivity has become central to the fields of professional training and learning, it has not been a central focus in the research conducted during the course of action program. In studying the experience of debriefing in psychotherapy training, we focused on “reflexive practices” of returning in the present to a past moment of activity. To achieve this, we used the enactive concept of “distinction” and developed the related notions of remanent structures and narrative and conceptual chains. This allowed us to define different types of "remembering", the retrieval in the present of moments of past experience. The results show, during the debriefing, a circulation between the different forms of construction of remanent structures and of remembering, as well as a multi-temporality of the experience which does not reduce it to the temporal horizons of the debriefing and of the analysed situation. These results open up the debriefings to objectives and temporalities broader than those usually assigned to them. Furthermore, the enrichment of the theoretical and analytical framework of the course of action program allows us to address reflexivity, abstraction and conceptualisation, and thus to better identify what brings it closer to or differentiates it from professional didactics.

The ‘distributed cognition’ research program, initiated by Edwin Hutchins, has contributed to the development of the ‘course of action’ research program from 1987 to the present day. Edwin Hutchins having recently recognized the close relationship between his latest research, developed in terms of embodied and distributed cognition, and that on the enaction paradigm, of which this ‘course of action’ research program is a part, the question now arises of the definition of an “augmented ‘course of action’ research program”. In relation to this enaction paradigm, such a program should go into greater depth and provide a new synthesis of the ‘distributed cognition’ research program’s past contributions to the ‘course of action’ research program and integrate its new contributions. This in-depth analysis, synthesis and renewal of the contributions to the ‘course of action’ research program are facilitated by the mutual contribution and addition of different theoretical and methodological results obtained by the two research programs over recent decades. In this paper we will present our personal view of the answer to this question.

The ‘distributed cognition’ research program, initiated by Edwin Hutchins, has contributed to the development of the ‘course of action’ research program from 1987 to the present day. Edwin Hutchins having recently recognized the close relationship between his latest research, developed in terms of embodied and distributed cognition, and his research on the enaction paradigm, of which this ‘course of action’ research program is a part, the question now arises of the definition of an “augmented ‘course of action’ research program”. In relation to this enaction paradigm, such a program should go into greater depth and provide a new synthesis of the ‘distributed cognition’ research program’s past contributions to the ‘course of action’ research program and integrate its new contributions. This in-depth analysis, synthesis and renewal of the contributions to the ‘course of action’ research program are facilitated by the mutual contribution and addition of different theoretical and methodological results obtained by the two research programs over recent decades. In this paper we will present our personal view of the answer to this question.

The 'distributed cognition' research program, initiated by Edwin Hutchins, has contributed to the development of the 'course of action' research program from 1987 to the present day. Edwin Hutchins having recently recognized the close relationship between his latest research, developed in terms of embodied and distributed cognition, and his research on the enaction paradigm, of which this 'course of action' research program is a part, the question now arises of the definition of an "augmented 'course of action' research program". In relation to this enaction paradigm, such a program should go into greater depth and provide a new synthesis of the 'distributed cognition' research program's past contributions to the 'course of action' research program and integrate its new contributions. This in-depth analysis, synthesis and renewal of the contributions to the 'course of action' research program are facilitated by the mutual contribution and addition of different theoretical and methodological results obtained by the two research programs over recent decades. In this paper we will present our personal view of the answer to this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'distributed cognition' research program, initiated by Edwin Hutchins, has contributed to the development of the 'course of action' research program from 1987 to the present day. Edwin Hutchins having recently recognized the close relationship between his latest research, developed in terms of embodied and distributed cognition, and that on the enaction paradigm, of which this 'course of action' research program is a part, the question now arises of the definition of an "augmented 'course of action' research program". In relation to this enaction paradigm, such a program should go into greater depth and provide a new synthesis of the 'distributed cognition' research program's past contributions to the 'course of action' research program and integrate its new contributions. This in-depth analysis, synthesis and renewal of the contributions to the 'course of action' research program are facilitated by the mutual contribution and addition of different theoretical and methodological results obtained by the two research programs over recent decades. In this paper we will present our personal view of the answer to this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SMACH (Multi-Agent Human Activity Simulation) is a social simulation platform that is part of EDF’s Research and Development framework aimed at developing simulation to anticipate and reduce energy consumption in homes. In this paper, we develop the idea that simulation requires the integration of a structural relationship into human activity, as residential energy consumption is largely the result of daily life dynamics. To this end, we show that the realism of the simulation realism is created by combining two levels of human activity modeling. The first level consists in framing the design with three epistemological hypotheses of the enaction and the Course of Action (individual, collective activity and coupling with the environment). The second level of modeling consists in applying these hypotheses based on our empirical knowledge of activity in real households. For each of these hypotheses, we explain the proximity and differences between the knowledge derived from empirical analysis and the dynamics created in the simulation. The SMACH platform is currently used by business experts who rely on human activity diagrams or energy consumption curves to carry out studies on the future use of electricity.

SMACH (Multi-Agent Human Activity Simulation) is a social simulation platform that is part of EDF's Research and Development framework aimed at developing simulation to anticipate and reduce energy consumption in homes. In this paper, we develop the idea that simulation requires the integration of a structural relationship into human activity, as residential energy consumption is largely the result of daily life dynamics. To this end, we show that the realism of the simulation realism is created by combining two levels of human activity modeling. The first level consists in framing the design with three epistemological hypotheses of the enaction and the Course of Action (individual, collective activity and coupling with the environment). The second level of modeling consists in applying these hypotheses based on our empirical knowledge of activity in real households. For each of these hypotheses, we explain the proximity and differences between the knowledge derived from empirical analysis and the dynamics created in the simulation. The SMACH platform is currently used by business experts who rely on human activity diagrams or energy consumption curves to carry out studies on the future use of electricity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spatial dimension is the proper of any working situation. The space of any activity requires consideration of the activity itself in relation to its surrounding space. This article proposes a concept of space of activity that is embedded in a dual theoretical and methodological framework. The instrumental approach captures the physical and organizational dimension of space. Enaction theory captures the emerging dimension of activity space as different forms of relation and communication. In this paper we discuss the approach of intervening in design, with the objective of focusing on the flow and spatial dynamics of the activity. We put forward the idea that any activity takes place in, and determines, a material and immaterial space through actions, relationships between subjects or between subjects and surrounding objects. It is therefore necessary on the one hand to design the space as a material and organizational device, as support for the activity in an instrumental and developmental approach to activity and, on the other hand, to take into account the emerging dimension of the activity’s space. The proposed approach calls for a joint consideration of space and activity with a view to developing the activity and its spatial dimension.

Spatial dimension is the proper of any working situation. The space of any activity requires consideration of the activity itself in relation to its surrounding space. This article proposes a concept of space of activity that is embedded in a dual theoretical and methodological framework. The instrumental approach captures the physical and organizational dimension of space. Enaction theory captures the emerging dimension of activity space as different forms of relation and communication. In this paper we discuss the approach of intervening in design, with the objective of focusing on the flow and spatial dynamics of the activity. We put forward the idea that any activity takes place in, and determines, a material and immaterial space through actions, relationships between subjects or between subjects and surrounding objects. It is therefore necessary on the one hand to design the space as a material and organizational device, as support for the activity in an instrumental and developmental approach to activity and, on the other hand, to take into account the emerging dimension of the activity’s space. The proposed approach calls for a joint consideration of space and activity with a view to developing the activity and its spatial dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The situated cognition (or action) hypothesis popped up in 1987 with Lucy Suchman’s book, “Plans and situated actions”. Today, it is both possible and useful to appreciate the effect of this event in the special context of french ergonomics work practice analysis. The movement of active reception of this event, especially through the course-of-action research program, allows a precision of both its value and its limits.