Year:

  1.  1
    K. Bausch (2015). A Comparison of Two Closely Related Methodologies. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):56-58.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Banathy Conversation Methodology” by Gordon Dyer, Jed Jones, Gordon Rowland & Silvia Zweifel. Upshot: I compare two closely related methodologies: the Banathy Conversation Methodology and Structured Dialogic Design (or Structured Democratic Dialogue, SDD.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  3
    M. Bower (2015). Do We Need a Metaphysics for Perception? Some Enactive, Phenomenological Reservations. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):159-161.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Towards a PL-Metaphysics of Perception: In Search of the Metaphysical Roots of Constructivism” by Konrad Werner. Upshot: I disclaim the need for a metaphysics for perception, in the sense of a general metaphysics, and suggest that the motivations for embarking on that project can be satisfied in an interesting way without any general metaphysical stock-taking, by appeal to phenomenological and enactive accounts of perception.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  1
    A. O. Brightman (2015). Avoiding Violence by Design. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):82-84.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: I propose that a lack of a common ground or culture of understanding is a design flaw in academic conferences that creates opportunities for violent reactions. I suggest that an additional or revised design principle or praxis should be considered through application of second-order cybernetics.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  1
    C. Brunner (2015). What a Conference Can Do. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):105-108.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences as a Learning Environment: How to Stimulate Active Learning at Academic Conferences?” by Johan Verbeke. Upshot: The commentary starts with a critical approach towards the concept of knowledge in artistic research. I argue that without transforming the conceptual outline of knowledge production by taking sensuous and more-than-human elements into account, experimental formats for learning environments will be undermined. The comment closes with a constructivist and speculative proposition for the future planning of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  1
    R. Chow (2015). Platform and Habit of Inquiry. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):31-32.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: My comments should contribute to making the next RTD conference even more “successful.” If we are to advance design research, changing the format of conferencing is secondary to changing the culture of inquiry, although they surely intertwine.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  1
    I. Danka (2015). Reconciling Constructivism with Realism: How Far Non-Dualism Should Be Followed. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):165-167.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Towards a PL-Metaphysics of Perception: In Search of the Metaphysical Roots of Constructivism” by Konrad Werner. Upshot: In his target article, Werner proposes a metaphysical foundation for a radical constructivist epistemology that is nonetheless claimed to reconcile constructivism with some sort of realism. While acknowledging his success in demonstrating that constructivism without an external/internal dualism is suitable for his purposes, I shall argue that rejecting a distinction between epistemological and ontological issues makes it questionable (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  2
    C. DiSalvo (2015). Disseminating Research Through Design - Challenges and Opportunities Learned. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):22-23.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: The target article provides a thorough and insightful review of the Research Through Design conferences and discusses the successes and limitations of the events in the dissemination of design knowledge.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  2
    P. Downes (2015). Opening Spatial Preunderstandings at the Roots of Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):167-169.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Towards a PL-Metaphysics of Perception: In Search of the Metaphysical Roots of Constructivism” by Konrad Werner. Upshot: Key aspects of Werner’s concerns involve overcoming dualisms. This presupposes an implicit spatial preunderstanding that is neglected in Werner and needs amplification. Diametric and concentric spatial-relational frames for cognition and perception offer a supporting framework for Werner’s interrogation of constructivist roots, to go beyond Cartesian metaphysics and to concretise difference that is not mere dualistic separation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  1
    A. C. Durrant, J. Vines, J. Wallace & J. Yee (2015). Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research Through Design. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):8-21.
    Context: Practice-based design research is becoming more widely recognized in academia, including at doctoral level, yet there are arguably limited options for dissemination beyond the traditional conference format of paper-based proceedings, possibly with an exhibition or “demonstrator” component that is often non-archival. Further, the opportunities afforded by the traditional-format paper presentations is at times at odds with practice-based methodologies being presented. Purpose: We provide a first-hand descriptive account of developing and running a new international conference with an experimental format that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  1
    A. C. Durrant, J. Vines, J. Wallace & J. Yee (2015). Authors’ Response: Balancing Openness and Structure in Conference Design to Support a Burgeoning Research Community. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):37-41.
    Upshot: We focus on the following issues: our intentions behind establishing the new Research Through Design conference series; epistemological concerns around “research through design”; and how we might find a balance between openness and specificity for the conference series going forward.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  1
    G. Dyer, J. Jones, G. Rowland & S. Zweifel (2015). The Banathy Conversation Methodology. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):42-50.
    Context: Thirty years ago, members of the systems science community discovered that at their conferences, more was being accomplished in the breaks than in the sessions. Led by Bela H. Banathy, they cancelled the sessions and created a conversation methodology that has proven far more effective. Dozens of conversations have now been held around the world. Problem: At a recent conversation in Linz, Austria, a team devoted its inquiry to the Banathy Conversation Methodology itself, asking, in particular, how to develop (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  1
    G. Dyer, J. Jones, G. Rowland & S. Zweifel (2015). Authors’ Response: Conversation Never Ends. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):60-64.
    Upshot: Our five colleagues have offered what we consider to be complementary views and welcome suggestions. We extend the conversation with them by examining areas of agreement, responding to criticisms, and considering potential additions to the Banathy Conversation Methodology. We add a description of the mate tradition and further details on Las Conversaciones del Extremo Sur.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  1
    L. Edwards (2015). Nurturing an Environment for Practice-Led Research: Reflections on RTD2015. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):23-25.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: The commentary reflects on Durrant et al. from the perspective of a conference participant. It also addresses the dynamics at the meeting point of multidisciplinary practice-led design research.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  3
    P. Gaitsch (2015). Do We Need a Metaphysics of Perception? Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):158-159.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Towards a PL-Metaphysics of Perception: In Search of the Metaphysical Roots of Constructivism” by Konrad Werner. Upshot: My general concern is that transferring the analysis of perception to a metaphysical and even metametaphysical level is not very helpful when it comes to justifying a certain philosophical conceptualisation of perception. To this end, a phenomenological analysis is needed. Furthermore, I point to an ambiguity within Werner’s correlationist account of the mind-world relation - and to a (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  2
    H. Gash (2015). Issues in Relation to Learning About Religion. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):137-138.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Religion: A Radical-Constructivist Perspective” by Andreas Quale. Upshot: Quale offers a way of categorizing religious discourse based on radical constructivism. This commentary raises questions about the inter-relation of cognitive and non-cognitive knowledge, the role of testimony in learning about religion, and whether knowledge and belief have different roles in cognitive and non-cognitive knowledge, and suggests that Quale’s analysis opens a tolerant perspective on religious discourse.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  3
    D. Gasparyan (2015). Transcendentalism Guarding Constructivism: The PL-Metaphysics of Hegel and Naturalists. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):169-172.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Towards a PL-Metaphysics of Perception: In Search of the Metaphysical Roots of Constructivism” by Konrad Werner. Upshot: I expand the notion of PL-metaphysics by introducing the approach of Hegel, who I regard as the chief PL-metaphysician. Also, I propose another substantiation of the division of metaphysics, namely, the criterion of the transparency/opacity of system settings, which I consider the most symptomatic for the differentiation of epistemologies, and believe plays the key role in understanding the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  1
    D. Griffiths & P. Baron (2015). The Tensions Between Second-Order Cybernetics and Traditional Academic Conferences. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):86-88.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: Richards’s long history and commitment to cybernetics provides a well-rounded view of the dichotomy between the traditional conference and one aspiring for second-order cybernetic attributes. We examine why traditional conferences have proved so resilient, despite their shortcomings, and discuss some issues that underlie the dynamics of the participation of academics in non-traditional conferences.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  1
    E. Guibert (2015). Timeframework, Diversity and Etiquette: Fostering Collective Knowledge Creation in Conferences Through Design and Practice. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):108-110.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences as a Learning Environment: How to Stimulate Active Learning at Academic Conferences?” by Johan Verbeke. Upshot: This commentary supports the author’s statement of the value of the design of a loose and solid timeframework for conferences in order to facilitate the collective development and consolidation of knowledge. It also points out the importance of the selection of a diverse range of attendees for the formation of communities of research. The main aspect (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  1
    C. M. Herr (2015). Can Conversations Be Designed? Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):74-75.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: Richards’s article presents a well-argued discussion of conversational conferences, with a particular focus on the design of such conferences. Richards bases his discussion on many years of personal experience with conversational conferences, primarily those organized by and for the American Society for Cybernetics. I particularly appreciate that Richards writes not only on cybernetics, but also in a cybernetic manner. As I (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  1
    M. Hohl (2015). Desires, Constraints and Designing Second-Order Cybernetic Conferences. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):84-85.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: I relate my own experiences of participating in and organizing conversational conferences to Richards’s discussion. Perhaps contradictory to Larry’s argument, I believe that in order for conversational conferences to be successful, they require some rules, structure and some hierarchy. Below, I would like to add reflections from own experience and also point to some guidelines worth considering, taken from Callaos’s (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  1
    A. T. Holroyd (2015). Striking a Balance: Openness in Research Through Design. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):36-37.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: The experimental conference format described by Durrant et al. is intended to create an open platform for dissemination and knowledge creation. The field of open design, in which designers create structures to support creative action by others, offers relevant insights and alternative approaches. For example: while it is logical to see openness as open (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  2
    W. Jonas (2015). Research Through Design Is More Than Just a New Form of Disseminating Design Outcomes. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):32-36.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: The question of more appropriate dissemination formats for research through design is important, but secondary. Artefacts are just media in the knowledge-generating process. RTD is a much more powerful concept than presented here.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  2
    S. Kjørup (2015). Afterthoughts on the Sensuous Knowledge Conferences. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):110-112.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences as a Learning Environment: How to Stimulate Active Learning at Academic Conferences?” by Johan Verbeke. Upshot: As one of the organisers of the Sensuous Knowledge conferences I take this opportunity to supplement Verbeke’s presentation and discussion of the format of these conferences with some information about three topics: the inspiration for the distinctive format we chose; one point where we changed the format because we realized that it did not work; and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  2
    U. Kordeš (2015). The Interesting Similarity of Religious and Everyday Epistemic Positions. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):126-128.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Religion: A Radical-Constructivist Perspective” by Andreas Quale. Upshot: Quale argues that radical constructivism and religion are incompatible: a believer must necessarily be a realist, while radical constructivism, with its fundamental relativistic epistemology, can neither confirm nor deny religious beliefs. In the commentary, I first question Quale’s distinction between cognitive and non-cognitive knowledge, especially from the point of view of the discussion of religious beliefs. Later on, I follow his argumentation of the epistemic position associated (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  3
    S. A. Koutroufinis (2015). Towards a Metaphysics for Constructivist Thought. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):163-165.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Towards a PL-Metaphysics of Perception: In Search of the Metaphysical Roots of Constructivism” by Konrad Werner. Upshot: My commentary has three aims. Firstly, to provide additional support to Konrad Werner’s correct insight that radical constructivism is based on a radical distinction between experienced reality and ontological reality. This is a strong metaphysical statement. Secondly, that radical constructivism is implicitly rooted in Cartesian ontological dualism. Thirdly, that Whitehead’s process ontology provides a fruitful foundation for Werner’s (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  1
    A. Laszlo (2015). Conversations Communities in Context: A Retrospective Prospective. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):54-56.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Banathy Conversation Methodology” by Gordon Dyer, Jed Jones, Gordon Rowland & Silvia Zweifel. Upshot: The tradition of the Banathy Conversation Communities and its related methodology represent a distinct evolution of social systems design inquiry. This inquiry has given rise to a strong cultural identity within the systems sciences for many who have experienced it. Key historical and axiological aspects of this inquiry are presented and future orientations explored as a complement to the main (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  1
    K. C. Laszlo (2015). Reflecting on the Impact of the Banathy Conversation Methodology in My Professional Practice. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):51-53.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Banathy Conversation Methodology” by Gordon Dyer, Jed Jones, Gordon Rowland & Silvia Zweifel. Upshot: Banathy’s Conversation Methodology and the conversation events where it was developed and practiced had a profound effect on my role as a scholar-practitioner. In this commentary, I reflect on the impact of the BCM in my professional practice as an educator, facilitator, and consultant within the field of social innovation, where participatory processes for eliciting the wisdom of the group (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  1
    P. Lloyd (2015). The Making of a Conference. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):30-31.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: The practice of thoughtful conference design helps to preserve the research conference as a vital arena for knowledge construction and exchange.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  1
    J. Lombardi (2015). Cybernetics, Conversation and Consensus: Designing Academic Conferences. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):79-81.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: Richards offers a variety of second-order concepts relevant when designing academic conferences. I insist and add on a few ideas. An emphasis for both: How can one design a space and structure that encourages deep conversations?
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  1
    J. Löwgren (2015). The RTD Community and the Big Picture. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):28-30.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: The Research Through Design conferences represent important steps towards more meaningful academic practices, not only within the field of research through design but potentially for many related academic fields. In order to realize this potential, I would like to take a step back and look at the RTD community in the context of a (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  2
    R. J. Martin (2015). Connections of Conversation-Based Conferences to the Foundations of Radical Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):88-90.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: The aim of this commentary is to emphasize connections between conversation-based conferences and the foundations of radical constructivism. The Richards article needs no defense - everything said here is already implied within his text. Nevertheless, drawing out the context may be helpful in showing how his suggestions are rooted in the constructivist project.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  1
    T. McCloughlin (2015). The Cognition of Religion: Radical-Constructivist Considerations. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):128-131.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Religion: A Radical-Constructivist Perspective” by Andreas Quale. Upshot: The aim of this commentary is to examine whether religious belief is a cognitive activity. It is proposed that religious belief can be the result of cognitive processes individually construed and constructed upon layers of prior experience, thus adhering to the fundamental tenets of radical constructivism. However, a distinction should be made between cognizing religious beliefs and religious experience. The use of the science versus religion dichotomy (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  1
    G. S. Metcalf (2015). A Constructivist Perspective on Banathy’s Conversation Methodology. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):53-54.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Banathy Conversation Methodology” by Gordon Dyer, Jed Jones, Gordon Rowland & Silvia Zweifel. Upshot: This commentary will address the implicit and explicit connections between Banathy’s Conversation Methodology, which is the heart of the process used at the IFSR Conversations held every two years in Austria, and constructivist theories in application.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  1
    J. K. Nikolov (2015). Proposing a Fictional Conference Day Using Larry Richards’s Cybernetic Design Principles. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):91-93.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: This commentary gives voice to Richards’s desire to move away from traditional formats, such as the paper presentation, by digressing from the OPC format by illustrating how the proposal inspires and disseminates rather than merely adding any critical commentary.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  1
    N. Nimkulrat (2015). Research Through Design as a Discursive Dissemination Platform. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):26-28.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: The aim of this commentary is to provide a perspective on the dissemination of practice-based design research in an international conference, namely Research Through Design, that utilized a discursive, experimental format. The content of the commentary includes the author’s experience-centered account as a delegate at RTD 2015 and recommendations for future events.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  2
    J. Norris (2015). Matching Methodology to Conference Content: The Assemblage Network Potential for Research Through Design Conferences. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):25-26.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: This OPC considers the tension inherent in the twin aims of the Research Through Design conferences: providing a high quality academic dialogical conference experience, whilst promoting and recording knowledge generated via a range of actants. It proposes the use of a more transparent underpinning methodology that aligns the disparate elements of the event with (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  3
    J. Olender (2015). Science As Child’s Play. Review of Models as Make-Believe by Adam Toon. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):182-185.
    Upshot: Adam Toon’s book is a development in the fictionalist view of scientific modelling. Although his fictionalist account is realistic and representational, Toon’s input to the theory can contribute to the constructivist discourse. The introduction of a direct view on models’ fictions brings this theory close to non-dualism and living practice views.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  1
    A. Quale (2015). Religion: A Radical-Constructivist Perspective. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):119-126.
    Context: In the literature of radical constructivism, the epistemology and ontology of religion has been rarely discussed. Problem: I investigate the impact of radical constructivism on some aspects of religion - in particular, on the conflict that is sometimes perceived to arise between religion and natural science, discussed in the context of religious belief. Method: It is argued that the epistemology of radical constructivism serves to distinguish between items of cognitive and non-cognitive knowledge. This makes it possible to discuss issues (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  1
    A. Quale (2015). Author’s Response: Is God a Radical Constructivist? Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):140-147.
    Upshot: Since all my commentators express some reservation about the distinction between the cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of knowledge in general, and its applicability and relevance in the domain of religious belief in particular, I will address the question of why this distinction is important and whether these two modes of knowledge can be communicated. Further questions I try to address include: Can a radical constructivist be an atheist, or alternatively a religious believer? What exactly would these designations mean? Is (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  2
    L. D. Richards (2015). Conversation Vs. Communication: A Suggestion for “the Banathy Conversation Methodology”. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):58-60.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Banathy Conversation Methodology” by Gordon Dyer, Jed Jones, Gordon Rowland & Silvia Zweifel. Upshot: The Banathy Conversation Methodology offers an approach to organizing and facilitating conversation groups among individuals self-identified as interested in a particular topic. As someone who would like to see more conversation integrated into academic conferences, I propose two extensions of BCM for consideration by the authors: one is an extension to the theoretical underpinnings, namely the conversation theory of Gordon (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  1
    L. D. Richards (2015). Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):65-73.
    Context: A tension exists between the needs and desires of the institutions providing the funding for academics to attend conferences and the potential for transforming the knowledge and understanding of conference participants - than in advancing their own careers and celebrity. Approaches to the problem can recognize the importance of funding and career-building in the current society, while still experimenting in ways that could generate new ideas. Method: Ideas from second-order cybernetics are used to derive design principles that might alleviate (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  2
    L. D. Richards (2015). Author’s Response: Design for Participation: Culture, Structure, Facilitation. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):93-97.
    Upshot: Conversational conferences are difficult to design in a way that avoids the consequences that arise when participants are not experienced with or fully value the conversational mode of interaction. So, the designers of such conferences must experiment with ways to build a culture, use a structure, and facilitate participation that might mitigate some of these consequences. The potential of the experimental conference designed in the light of second-order cybernetics lies, in part, in the prospect of identifying and acquiring the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  5
    H. Richter (2015). Complexity, Power, Intuition: Unearthing the Affective Ground of Economic Structures. Review of The Power at the End of the Economy by Brian Massumi. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):186-188.
    Upshot: Massumi innovatively interlinks poststructuralist theory with ideas from cognitive psychology and Luhmann’s systems theory to deconstruct rational choice as the founding myth of the liberal economy. His politically charged constructivism explores socio-economic reproduction as a process of constant re-stabilization between the openness of affective response and the closure of rationality. Defying social determination, Massumi shows how affect can constitute a source of potential change when modulated trans-individually in response to political events.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  1
    M. Sanders (2015). The Design Conference Model and Its Learning Environment: A Construction Site. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):112-114.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences as a Learning Environment: How to Stimulate Active Learning at Academic Conferences?” by Johan Verbeke. Upshot: As an echo to Verbeke’s writing, I would like to propose the notion of a construction site as a constructive metaphor for dynamically revisiting the template of research conferences and events in the field of art and design.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  3
    A. Schetz (2015). A Mess of the Grounding Role of Metaphysics. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):162-163.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Towards a PL-Metaphysics of Perception: In Search of the Metaphysical Roots of Constructivism” by Konrad Werner. Upshot: In his target article, Werner focuses his efforts on finding a metaphysical paradigm in which it would be suitable to embed - as he puts it - some movements in contemporary philosophy and cognitive science, and especially radical constructivism and the embodied cognition approach. In my commentary, I shall briefly discuss the question of metaphysical grounding or embedding (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  1
    T. Scholte (2015). Embed and Unzip: Entailment Structures as a Knowledge Building Tool for Academic Conferences. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):76-77.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: Building upon Richards’s notions of “design by constraint” and the usefulness of assigning collaborative tasks to conference participants, this commentary suggests a basic application of Pask’s conversation theory as a potential aide to fruitful knowledge construction in a conference setting.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  1
    P. C. Schroeder (2015). Nurturing Conversation Through Innovative Conference Design. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):77-79.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: Fostering conversation is shown to be a central element in a cybernetic approach to meeting design. A history of successful meetings on cybernetic themes suggests how designing for conversation may also be applied to academic conferences generally.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  1
    L. P. Steffe (2015). Can a Radical Constructivist Be Religious? - Yes! Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):131-134.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Religion: A Radical-Constructivist Perspective” by Andreas Quale. Upshot: The first of my three main goals in this commentary is to demonstrate that Quale’s radical separation between cognitive and non-cognitive knowledge is not viable. The second is to establish Quale’s assertion that a radical constructivist cannot be genuinely religious is a result of taking radical constructivism and religion as abstracted first-order models and is a result of comparing and contrasting elements of these models. The third (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  1
    B. Sweeting & M. Hohl (2015). Exploring Alternatives to the Traditional Conference Format: Introduction to the Special Issue on Composing Conferences. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):1-7.
    Context: The design of academic conferences, in which settings ideas are shared and created, is, we suggest, of more than passing interest in constructivism, where epistemology is considered in terms of knowing rather than knowledge. Problem: The passivity and predominantly one-way structure of the typical paper presentation format of academic conferences has a number of serious limitations from a constructivist perspective. These limits are both practical and epistemological. While alternative formats abound, there is nevertheless increasing pressure reinforcing this format due (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  1
    A. Twigger Holroyd (2015). Striking a Balance: Openness in Research Through Design. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):36-37.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Developing a Dialogical Platform for Disseminating Research through Design” by Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines, Jayne Wallace & Joyce Yee. Upshot: The experimental conference format described by Durrant et al. is intended to create an open platform for dissemination and knowledge creation. The field of open design, in which designers create structures to support creative action by others, offers relevant insights and alternative approaches. For example: while it is logical to see openness as open (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  51.  2
    J. P. Van Bendegem (2015). Why I Am a Constructivist Atheist. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):138-140.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Religion: A Radical-Constructivist Perspective” by Andreas Quale. Upshot: An essential feature of Quale’s point of view is the strict distinction between the cognitive and the non-cognitive. I argue that this position is untenable and hence that a radical constructivist can discuss religious matters.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  52.  1
    J. Verbeke (2015). Designing Academic Conferences as a Learning Environment: How to Stimulate Active Learning at Academic Conferences? Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):98-105.
    Context: The main aim in organizing academic conferences is to share and develop knowledge in the focus area of the conference. Most conferences, however, are organized in a traditional way: two or three keynote presentations and a series of parallel sessions where participants present their research work, mainly using PowerPoint or Prezi presentations, with little interaction between participants. Problem: Each year, a huge number of academic events and conferences is organized. Yet their typical design is mainly based on a passive (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  53.  1
    J. Verbeke (2015). Author’s Response: Four Layers for Designing Conferences as Learning Environments: Space, Time, Communities of Practice and Trust. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):115-118.
    Upshot: Building on the open peer commentaries on my article, I structure their main suggestions and ideas into a set of four focus areas valuable for future conference organizers.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  54. S. Vörös (2015). Dubious Dichotomies and Mysterious Mysticisms. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):135-137.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Religion: A Radical-Constructivist Perspective” by Andreas Quale. Upshot: I address two topics that I consider particularly problematic in Quale’s target article. First, I question the purported distinction between cognition and non-cognition, and second, I inquire into a rather vague construal of “mystical philosophies.” Given that both topics play important roles in the overall argumentative chain, their unfoundedness threatens to have serious consequences for the main conclusions of the article.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  55. K. Werner (2015). Towards a PL-Metaphysics of Perception: In Search of the Metaphysical Roots of Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):148-157.
    Context: Metaphysics of perception explores fundamental questions regarding the structure and status of the perceived world or appearance(s. By virtue of perception, the apparent world comes to existence. This, however, does not mean that the apparent world is a projection of mind, that it exists “in the head.” Implications: PL-metaphysics reconciles realism with constructivism. As such, it might be considered either an alternative to constructivism or an improvement and completion of this position. Constructivist content: The article refers to non-Cartesian movements (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  56. K. Werner (2015). Author’s Response: Subjects, Worlds and Metaphysics - What Is It All About? Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):172-181.
    Upshot: My principal goal in this response is to reintroduce my understanding of metaphysics, which turned out - as I have learned from almost all of the commentaries - to be problematic, to say the least. Having done this, I will be able to address some of the most topical remarks provided by commentators, thereby further clarifying and also modifying my position.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  57.  7
    E. K. Ackermann (2015). Amusement, Delight, and Whimsy: Humor Has Its Reasons That Reason Cannot Ignore. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):405-411.
    Context: The idea for this article sprang from a desire to revive a conversation with the late Ernst von Glasersfeld on the heuristic function - and epistemological status - of forms of ideations that resist linguistic or empirical scrutiny. A close look into the uses of humor seemed a thread worth pursuing, albeit tenuous, to further explore some of the controversies surrounding the evocative power of the imaginal and other oblique forms of knowing characteristic of creative individuals. Problem: People generally (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  58.  3
    E. K. Ackermann (2015). Author’s Response: Impenetrable Minds, Delusion of Shared Experience: Let’s Pretend. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):418-421.
    Upshot: In view of Kenny’s clinical insights, Hug’s notes on the intricacies of rational vs. a-rational “knowing” in the design sciences, and Chronaki & Kynigos’s notice of mathematics teachers’ meta-communication on experiences of change, this response reframes the heuristic power of bisociation and suspension of disbelief in the light of Kelly’s notion of “as-if-ism” (constructive alternativism. Doing as-if and playing what-if, I reiterate, are critical to mitigating intra-and inter-personal relations, or meta-communicating. Their epistemic status within the radical constructivist framework is (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  59.  2
    J. Bowers (2015). Documenting the Learning Process From a Constructionist Perspective. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):348-349.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Elementary Students’ Construction of Geometric Transformation Reasoning in a Dynamic Animation Environment” by Alan Maloney. Upshot: This commentary assumes a constructionist perspective to discuss the choice of methods, conclusions and design goals that Panorkou and Maloney make in their study of students’ activities with the Graph ’n Glyphs microworld.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  60.  3
    P. Boytchev (2015). Constructionism and Deconstructionism. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):355-363.
    Context: There is a movement to change education so that it is adequate to social expectations and uses the full potential of technology. However, there has been no significant breakthrough in this area and there is no clear evidence why. Problem: A potential issue explaining why education falls behind is the way educators focus on education. There is a possibility that a significant step in the learning process is routinely neglected. Method: Two different approaches to using IT in education are (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  61.  2
    P. Boytchev (2015). Author’s Response: Does Understanding Deconstruction Require Its Deconstruction? Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):367-369.
    Upshot: I describe my perception of deconstruction, including the controversial point of view that deconstruction is actually construction. I also provide more details about the some of the design decisions in the software, and how these affected the students’ experience.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  62.  4
    K. Brennan (2015). Beyond Technocentrism: Supporting Constructionism in the Classroom. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):289-296.
    Context: In 2015, we are surrounded by tools and technologies for creating and making, thinking and learning. But classroom “learning” is often focused on learning about the tool/technology itself, rather than learning with or through the technology. Problem: A constructionist theory of learning offers useful ways for thinking about how technology can be included in the service of learning in K-12 classrooms. To support constructionism in the classroom, we need to focus on supporting teachers, who necessarily serve as the agents (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  63.  4
    K. Brennan (2015). Author’s Response: The Critical Context of Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):301-304.
    Upshot: The OPC responses aptly identified numerous factors teachers encounter that can impede changes in pedagogical practice in the classroom. Although some of these factors are external, beyond a teacher’s control, I discuss one internal factor - a teacher’s attitudes and beliefs about their role and the learners they support - that was raised in the responses.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  64.  2
    K. Brennan (2015). Objects To Think With. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):313-314.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Constructionist E-Books: New Mediations for Creative Mathematical Thinking?” by Chronis Kynigos. Upshot: Chronis Kynigos’s article invites us to explore how to make familiar objects for learning — namely, books — more constructionist. In my response, I ask questions about the affordances and potential limitations of books as central objects, particularly about the role of the learner in relation to the objects.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  65.  6
    A. Chronaki & C. Kynigos (2015). Humor as a Humble Way to Access the Complexity of Knowledge Construction. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):416-417.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Amusement, Delight, and Whimsy: Humor Has Its Reasons that Reason Cannot Ignore” by Edith K. Ackermann. Upshot: Ackermann tackles “humor” as an agentive participant in the process of knowledge construction. Performing her thesis in her writing, she give a reflective account of how oblique ways of knowing have always been present in debates concerning epistemology, albeit not given equal status as rational ones. As such, her endeavors in this text are geared towards lifting up (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  66.  2
    D. Corcoran (2015). Thoughts on Developing Theory in Designing C-Books. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):316-317.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Constructionist E-Books: New Mediations for Creative Mathematical Thinking?” by Chronis Kynigos. Upshot: As a mathematics teacher educator and “digital tourist,” I focus my response to the many questions posed by Kynigos from three perspectives. First, I outline the theories he uses to frame the reporting of the research into the design of constructionist e-books. Second, I compare his theoretical tools with design-based research as an organising framework for a research project of this (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  67.  3
    M. Daskolia, C. Kynigos & K. Makri (2015). Learning About Urban Sustainability with Digital Stories: Promoting Collaborative Creativity From a Constructionist Perspective. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):388-396.
    Context: Sustainability is among major societal goals in our days. Education is acknowledged as an essential strategy for attaining sustainability by activating the creative potential within young people to understand sustainability, bring forth changes in their everyday life, and collectively envision a more sustainable future. Problem: However, teaching and learning about sustainability and sustainability-related issues is not an easy task due to the inherent complexity, ambiguity, and context-specificity of the concept. We are in need of innovative pedagogical approaches and tools (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  68.  9
    S. Delarivière & J. Frans (2015). Computational Explanation in Cognitive Sciences: The Mechanist Turn. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):426-429.
    Upshot: The computational theory of mind has been elaborated in many different ways throughout the last decades. In Explaining the Computational Mind, Milkowski defends his view that the mind can be explained as computational through his defense of mechanistic explanation. At no point in this book is there explicit mention of constructivist approaches to this topic. We will, nevertheless, argue that it is interesting for constructivist readers.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  69.  3
    G. Dettori (2015). Narrative Learning for Meaning-Making, Collaboration and Creativity. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):399-400.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Learning about Urban Sustainability with Digital Stories: Promoting Collaborative Creativity from a Constructionist Perspective” by Maria Daskolia, Chronis Kynigos & Katerina Makri. Upshot: The target article by Daskolia, Kynigos and Makri shows the great potential of narrative learning to foster general learning skills, such as meaning-making, collaboration and creativity, while facilitating the construction of disciplinary content knowledge. This learning approach has much to recommend it, especially from a constructivist perspective, because it supports the implementation (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  70.  10
    G. Futschek (2015). Deconstruction in Software Construction. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):364-365.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Constructionism and Deconstructionism” by Pavel Boytchev. Upshot: Boytchev’s deconstructionism looks at first glance like a game of words. Upon a deeper view of the subject, he focuses our attention on the importance of deconstruction to the construction process, which is highly connected to creativity. In my contribution, I want to point out the close relationship of Boytchev’s deconstruction to the software development process, where requirements analysis corresponds to deconstruction and software design and implementation correspond (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  71.  3
    H. Gash & T. McCloughlin (2015). Embedding Technology in Pedagogy. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):297-298.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Beyond Technocentrism: Supporting Constructionism in the Classroom” by Karen Brennan. Upshot: Brennan describes strategies designed to help teachers use Scratch in their classrooms, emphasising interfaces between the tool and its users, between users and between hope and happening. Previous work with similar aims identified apparently significant cultural approaches to initiating constructionist practice. Questions arise about the development of practice from technocentric to pedagogic over time that may have some answers in the data accumulated.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  72.  2
    E. Geraniou & M. Mavrikis (2015). Building Bridges to Algebra Through a Constructionist Learning Environment. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):321-330.
    Context: In the digital era, it is important to investigate the potential impact of digital technologies in education and how such tools can be successfully integrated into the mathematics classroom. Similarly to many others in the constructionism community, we have been inspired by the idea set out originally by Papert of providing students with appropriate “vehicles” for developing “Mathematical Ways of Thinking.” Problem: A crucial issue regarding the design of digital tools as vehicles is that of “transfer” or “bridging” i.e., (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  73.  2
    E. Geraniou & M. Mavrikis (2015). Authors’ Response: Let’s Cross That Bridge… but Don’T Forget to Look Back at Our Old Neighborhood. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):335-337.
    Upshot: This response addresses the main points from the three commentaries, focusing particularly on additional terms and concepts introduced to the bridging metaphor. We further clarify our call for future research in the area and conclude with reflections about the practical implications emerging from our target article and the commentaries.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  74.  3
    C. Girvan (2015). Changing Teacher Beliefs: Moving Towards Constructionism. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):298-299.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Beyond Technocentrism: Supporting Constructionism in the Classroom” by Karen Brennan. Upshot: If we are to move beyond technocentricism, we need not only to equip teachers with pedagogical approaches but to support a change in their beliefs, values and assumptions. While factors such as assessment practices and institutional norms can limit the impact of professional development by considering the ways in which teachers form their teacher-identity and the factors that can motivate change, we can begin (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  75.  2
    C. Girvan (2015). Studying Complexity: Creativity, Collaboration and Learning. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):397-398.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Learning about Urban Sustainability with Digital Stories: Promoting Collaborative Creativity from a Constructionist Perspective” by Maria Daskolia, Chronis Kynigos & Katerina Makri. Upshot: Creativity, collaboration and learning are fascinatingly messy and interconnected processes. Does knowledge develop by engaging in a collaborative creative process, or does existing knowledge allow us to create more creative artefacts? Does one build upon the other in a bricolage process, familiar to constructionist learning experiences? If so, how can we best (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  76.  2
    B. Harvey (2015). Construction and Deconstruction. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):365-366.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Constructionism and Deconstructionism” by Pavel Boytchev. Upshot: Pavel Boytchev’s article calls attention to the fruitful dialectic between building things and taking them apart: No successful construction without deconstruction. Of course by using the word “deconstruction,” he is also implicitly invoking the critical-theory sense of the term, inviting us to deconstruct constructionism. I found the article fascinating on both levels.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  77.  3
    A. Hjorth (2015). Body Syntonicity in Multi-Point Rotation? Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):351-352.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Elementary Students’ Construction of Geometric Transformation Reasoning in a Dynamic Animation Environment” by Alan Maloney. Upshot: Parnorkou and Maloney’s article presents an interesting, well-structured and clearly described study of children’s reasoning about mental rotations. Specifically, Parnorkou and Maloney deploy the microworld Graphs ’n Glyphs, and use it as a “window on thinking-in-change” as they observe and interview children who use it. Reading the article raised a few questions for me about the role of body (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  78.  2
    P. Hoburg (2015). Specifying Revolutionary Sense-Making. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):422-425.
    Upshot: This eclectic collection of essays attempts to make sense of the complexly vexed relation between various modalities of sense-making and non-sense - a relation previously underspecified by enactivist theories and programs of research. As such, the book offers creative conceptual elaboration often augmented by analysis of experimental research in support of the enactivist approach to cognition.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  79.  3
    K. F. Hollebrands (2015). Reasoning in a Dynamic Animation Environment. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):350-351.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Elementary Students’ Construction of Geometric Transformation Reasoning in a Dynamic Animation Environment” by Alan Maloney. Upshot: Parnorkou and Maloney describe how a dynamic animation environment, Graphs ’n Glyphs, supported fourth-grade students’ understandings of translations and rotations. Two elements were critical in their teaching experiment: the design of the software and tasks. This commentary focuses on the decisions that they made and possible implications they had for students’ reasoning.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  80.  2
    W. Holmes (2015). “Deconstructionism” - A Neglected Stage in the Constructivist Learning Process? Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):366-367.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Constructionism and Deconstructionism” by Pavel Boytchev. Upshot: Boytchev identifies “deconstruction” as a neglected but essential stage in the constructivist learning process. Drawing on two studies, one in a university and one in a secondary school, for which software was designed to facilitate constructionist student learning, the author argues that the first phase of learning is the decomposition of knowledge into smaller yet meaningful and reusable entities, which are used as building blocks to construct both (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  81.  3
    T. Hug (2015). Towards a Delightful Critique of Pure Reason. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):414-416.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Amusement, Delight, and Whimsy: Humor Has Its Reasons that Reason Cannot Ignore” by Edith K. Ackermann. Upshot: Ackermann’s target article strikes a chord by thinking together oblique and rational aspects of knowing in constructivism. Her target article points out uses of humor and various ways of making sense of our experience that have been underestimated in constructivist discourse. While I can agree on the main lines of her argument, I want to argue for further (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  82.  4
    I. Jones (2015). Building Bridges That Are Functional and Structural. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):332-333.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Building Bridges to Algebra through a Constructionist Learning Environment” by Eirini Geraniou & Manolis Mavrikis. Upshot: In their article, Geraniou and Mavrikis describe an environment to help children explore algebraic relationships through pattern building. They report on transfer of learning from the computer to paper, but also implicit is transfer from concrete to abstract contexts. I make the case that transfer from abstract to concrete contexts should complement such approaches.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  83.  2
    V. Kenny (2015). All Alone, Together? Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):412-414.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Amusement, Delight, and Whimsy: Humor Has Its Reasons that Reason Cannot Ignore” by Edith K. Ackermann. Upshot: My commentary on this target article departs from the final part dealing with “Ernst-the-rationalist” and attempts to draw out a series of complications in the ways we may understand Ernst von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism. Special attention is given to the presence of incommensurability and incompatibility, not only between people but more so within any given individual.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  84.  2
    C. Kynigos (2015). Designing Constructionist E-Books: New Mediations for Creative Mathematical Thinking? Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):305-313.
    Context: The article discusses design strategies for infusing constructionism and creativity into widely recognised media such as e-books. Problem: E-books have recently included constructionist widgets but we do not yet have creative designs for readers who may want to both read and tinker with an e-book. Method: The generation and study of a community of interest collaboratively designing e-books, with a strong constructionist element. Results: Some first examples of social creativity in the collaborative design process are discussed in the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  85.  4
    C. Kynigos (2015). Author’s Response: Designing for New Mediations: A Constructionist Approach. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):317-320.
    Upshot: The three commentaries focus on the c-book as “object,” on locating the learner in the design process and on the challenge to develop more fine-grained theory for constructionist collaborative design of educational resources. I respond to this delightfully critical discussion in three ways, addressing the c-book as a potentially new kind of mediation, thinking of constructionist collaborative designs as creativity enhancers and considering constructionism as one of the key frameworks for understanding collective designs.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  86.  6
    C. Kynigos & G. Futschek (2015). Re-Situating Constructionism. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):281-284.
    Upshot: Constructionism is an epistemology, a theory of design and a theory of learning. It addresses constructivist learning in individual and social environments where bricolage with digital expressive media plays an important role. This editorial situates constructionism within constructivist discourse, and discusses the potential for constructionism to play an identifiable and important role in a wider educational discourse and theory networking. In this framework, it provides a short synthetic review of the eight papers addressing constructionism from a diversity of perspectives.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  87.  2
    K. Makri, M. Daskolia & C. Kynigos (2015). Authors’ Response: Seeking “Power” in Powerful Ideas, Systems Thinking and Affective Aspects of Learning. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):401-404.
    Upshot: The commentaries raise a plethora of issues, extending the article’s problematic in insightful ways. In this response, we chose to focus on two interesting views on the “powerful idea” in the constructionist sense, on systems versus causal-rule thinking and on the affective aspect of collaborative learning.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  88.  4
    J. Mason (2015). Bringing Reflection to the Fore Using Narrative Construction. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):334-335.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Building Bridges to Algebra through a Constructionist Learning Environment” by Eirini Geraniou & Manolis Mavrikis. Upshot: In striving to support transition or bridging between arithmetic and algebra through software, Geraniou & Mavrikis come up against the need for learners not simply to “reflect” on what they have been doing, but to withdraw from action every so often, consider what actions have been effective, and construct their own narrative to hold together actions and goals and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  89.  3
    R. Noss & J. Clayson (2015). Reconstructing Constructionism. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):285-288.
    Upshot: Constructionism must return to its epistemological roots to make any lasting impact on education. Constructionism should be transformed from a framework of action into ways to conceptualize and record what people actually do in constructionist environments so that theories of knowledge-building acts can be tested and the designing of those environments can be made more effective.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  90.  3
    N. Panorkou (2015). Proposing a Framework for Exploring “Bridging”. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):331-332.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Building Bridges to Algebra through a Constructionist Learning Environment” by Eirini Geraniou & Manolis Mavrikis. Upshot: Geraniou and Mavrikis raise the important issue of “transfer,” when students transition from activity in technological tools to paper-and-pencil tasks. In this commentary, I contribute to the conversation by focusing on the relationship between task design and students’ development of knowledge.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  91.  4
    N. Panorkou & A. Maloney (2015). Elementary Students’ Construction of Geometric Transformation Reasoning in a Dynamic Animation Environment. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):338-347.
    Context: Technology has not only changed the way we teach mathematical concepts but also the nature of knowledge, and thus what is possible to learn. While geometric transformations are recognized to be foundational to the formation of students’ geometric conceptions, little research has focused on how these notions can be introduced in elementary schooling. Problem: This project addressed the need for development of students’ reasoning about and with geometric transformations in elementary school. We investigated the nature of students’ understandings of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  92.  3
    N. Panorkou & A. Maloney (2015). Authors’ Response: Planting Seeds of Mathematical Abstraction. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):352-354.
    Upshot: We consider that elementary students’ situated activities with geometric transformations and animation contain the seeds of complex, and eventually, mathematically generalizable and abstract reasoning. Further studies can explore such technologically-based activities’ potential as building blocks for flexible, creative, and formalized knowledge.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  93.  2
    C. Papademetri-Kachrimani (2015). Learning About Learning with Teachers and Young Children. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):370-381.
    Context: Convictions arising from different, separate and distinct domains and paradigms, Papert’s constructionism, literature on play from the domain of early childhood education, complexity theory) agree in favor of a need for a shift in education that will allow children to access what Papert refers to as “hard learning” that consequently leads to “hard fun.” Problem: Nevertheless, such an achievement demands supporting learning in a manner that seems difficult for teachers to comprehend and handle. Method: In this article, we provide (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  94.  2
    C. Papademetri-Kachrimani (2015). Author’s Response: School Reform: Is It Indeed Impossible? Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):385-387.
    Upshot: Building on the commentator’s responses to the target article and bringing together all the valuable arguments, I pin down the challenges raised by reconsidering the concern Papert had at some point that school reform is impossible.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  95.  2
    K. Peppler (2015). Tool Selection and Its Impact on Collaborative Learning. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):398-399.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Learning about Urban Sustainability with Digital Stories: Promoting Collaborative Creativity from a Constructionist Perspective” by Maria Daskolia, Chronis Kynigos & Katerina Makri. Upshot: Daskolia, Kynigos and Makri’s article offers us a view into potential applications of constructionist learning theory to help students conceive of and collaborate on solutions to today’s complex problems. This work in many ways parallels the efforts of those investigating systems thinking and highlights the importance of digital production in that process. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  96.  2
    G. Psycharis (2015). Embedding Inquiry and Workplace in a Constructionist Approach to Mathematics and Science Teachers’ Education. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):299-301.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Beyond Technocentrism: Supporting Constructionism in the Classroom” by Karen Brennan. Upshot: Brennan describes ways by which teachers can be supported to bypass a technocentric view of learning with technology in the classroom, from a constructionist perspective. She reports on the development of a corresponding model of professional development by describing the elements of the model and its design principles as well as the tensions that arose while trying to support teachers’ explorations and experiences in (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  97.  3
    A. I. Sacristán (2015). Backwards-and-Forwards From the Unexpected: Teachers as Constructionist Learners. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):382-383.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Learning about Learning with Teachers and Young Children” by Chrystalla Papademetri-Kachrimani. Upshot: The activities that Papademetri-Kachrimani presents in her stories create situations that lead to unexpected results, thus opening the potential for learning about learning in teachers’ professional development. These integrate modeling-based learning - arguably a form of constructionism -, and allow learners to move back-and-forth between representations in order to develop strategies and rules.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  98.  4
    M. H. Wilkerson-Jerde (2015). Locating the Learner in Collaborative Constructionist Design. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):315-316.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Constructionist E-Books: New Mediations for Creative Mathematical Thinking?” by Chronis Kynigos. Upshot: Involving professionals in the design of c-books is a feasible and promising way for constructionism to influence large-scale educational practice. However, the role of learners as readers of c-books was unclear in Kynigos’s account. Here I review the critical role that learners play in the conceptualization of educational environments, and I make recommendations for centering learners in the process of collaborative constructionist (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  99.  2
    N. Yiannoutsou (2015). Elements of Surprise in Teaching and Learning. Constructivist Foundations 10 (3):383-384.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Learning about Learning with Teachers and Young Children” by Chrystalla Papademetri-Kachrimani. Upshot: In my commentary, I focus on the concept of surprise underlying the design of the learning experience presented in Papademetri-Kachrimani’s target article. I treat surprise as a concept that integrates the creative, open and non-predictable characteristics of constructionist teaching and learning. In my analysis, I show that current technological and societal developments have made these ideas of constructionism more relevant than ever. Within (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  100.  3
    D. Baecker (2015). Mysteries of Cognition. Review of Neocybernetics and Narrative by Bruce Clarke. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):261-263.
    Upshot: Are narratives systems on their own, or rather structures supporting and, if need be, subverting the reproduction of systems? Bruce Clarke inquires into the ability of social systems theory to help understand narratives - and comes across some “mysteries of cognition” concerning the questions of how systems emerge and which of them might be considered self-referential and autopoietic.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  101.  5
    H. Cadenas (2015). The Reality of Ontologies in Luhmann’s Work. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):210-211.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: I discuss the conception of “reality” that Matuszek attributed to Luhmann’s work and the influence of “ontology” on his thought. It is argued that Luhmann’s system theory is based on the distinction system/environment and not on an ontological principle.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  102.  1
    H. Cadenas & M. Arnold (2015). The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):169-176.
    Context: Although the theory of autopoietic systems was originally formulated to explain the phenomenon of life from an operational and temporal perspective, sociologist Niklas Luhmann incorporated it later within his theory of social systems. Due to this adoption, there have been several discussions regarding the applicability of this concept beyond its biological origins. Problem: This article addresses the conception of Luhman’s autopoietic social systems, and confronts this vision with criticism both of the original authors of the concept of autopoiesis and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  103.  4
    H. Cadenas & M. Arnold (2015). Authors’ Response: On the Criticisms Against the Autopoiesis of Social Systems. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):196-202.
    Upshot: Firstly, we discuss the main criticisms of our arguments. Secondly, we address the comments and observations on some parts of our article. We conclude with some reflections about the perspectives of the discussion on the autopoiesis concept.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  104.  8
    P. Cariani (2015). How to Become Omniscient in 12 Easy Steps. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):248-250.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: From the standpoint of epistemology-centered operationalist, pragmatist, constructivist perspectives, which are firmly grounded in the capacities of limited observers, all omniscient observers in realist ontologies and theologies appear both completely unattainable in practice and conceptually incoherent in their formulations. Nevertheless, these ideas may be useful heuristically.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  105.  3
    G. Corsi (2015). The Concept of Autopoiesis: Its Relevance and Consequences for Sociology. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):194-196.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: I discuss two aspects of Cadenas & Arnold’s target article. The first concerns some clarifications of the sociological importance of the concept of autopoiesis and the second the criticisms of this concept and its applications in the social sciences.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  106.  3
    R. Desmet (2015). Opening a Door to Whitehead. Review of The Lure of Whitehead Edited by Nicholas Gaskill and A. J. Nocek. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):264-266.
    Upshot: Whitehead has been excluded from contemporary philosophy for a long time. Current fashions in academia have opened a door to Whitehead through Deleuze. The Lure of Whitehead is paradigmatic in this respect. All admirers of Whitehead’s philosophy should rejoice in this evolution - not, however, without realizing that the price is a selective appropriation of Whitehead.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  107.  2
    H. Egner (2015). “Believe It or Not!” - It’s About the Truth in Science. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):221-222.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: On an epistemological level, Matuszek argues convincingly that Luhmann’s epistemological ambiguities could be embedded in a coherent constructivist approach. However, what do we gain by being assured of this and why is it so difficult to tolerate ambiguities in an otherwise highly elaborated theory?
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  108.  4
    S. Franchi (2015). Which Events is the World Made Of? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):250-252.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: While I agree with Gasparyan’s incisive critique of the concept of the “general observer,” her use of the concept of “event” is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, she equates “events” to Wittgenstein’s and “configurations of objects” or “states of affairs” and she consider the world as a collection of such states of affairs. On the other hand, she cites Badiou’s work in support of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  109.  3
    M. Füllsack (2015). Who Downed MH-17, or Do Collective Observations Interact Non-Linearly? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):238-239.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: I consider the possibility of replacing the global observer with a collective observer and ask whether the insights generated by such a collective observer would have to be considered subject to non-linear interactions.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  110.  4
    I. Gasparov (2015). How We Can Get an Observer Back. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):237-238.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: I introduce some distinctions that I hold to be useful for understanding the global observer problem and then sketch a hypothetical scenario that suggests the existence of an observer that is as good as a global one.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  111.  2
    D. Gasparyan (2015). What Can the Global Observer Know? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):227-237.
    Context: The detection of objective reality, truth, and lies are still heated topics in epistemology. When discussing these topics, philosophers often resort to certain thought experiments, engaging an important concept that can be broadly identified as “the global observer.” It relates to Putnam’s God’s Eye, Davidson’s Omniscient Interpreter, and the ultimate observer in quantum physics, among others. Problem: The article explores the notion of the global observer as the guarantor of the determinability and configuration of events in the world. It (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  112.  1
    D. Gasparyan (2015). Author’s Response: Denying the Global Observer. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):253-260.
    Upshot: I focus on the group of ideas concerning the nature of the global observer and discuss some important terms regarding the idea of global observation. Furthermore, I address the meta-philosophical problem of how the presence or absence of the global observer influences various philosophical and scientific contexts.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  113.  2
    F. Grote (2015). Society as Constructed Ontology? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):217-218.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: The question of whether contingency can be limited concerns the foundations of sociological systems theory as a theory of cognition. This commentary argues that while such limits may seem plausible and apparent at first, they would consequentially give rise to an ontological notion of society within society. Rather, the commentary proposes to understand the limits identified in the target article as (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  114.  3
    P. M. Hejl (2015). Explaining Social Systems Without Humans. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):189-192.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: I argue in favor of not eliminating humans from social theory. My argumentation is based on the “mechanistic” perspective that emerged in the interdisciplinary context of systems theory but that is lacking in Luhmann’s work. Based on defining communication in the constructivist-mechanist tradition, I claim that research on human universals contributes to solving the constructivist problem of how understanding among (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  115.  5
    E. Imbeault & P. W. Hughes (2015). Phenomenal Consciousness, Affectivity, and Conation: Where Extended Cognition Has Never Gone Before. Review of Feeling Extended: Sociality as Extended Body-Becoming-Mind by Douglas Robinson. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):271-273.
    Upshot: Douglas Robinson argues for a revision of the extended mind theory that incorporates intersubjectivity and qualia. Robinson argues that “material extendedness” is less important than accounting for the subjective experience of what he terms “body-becoming-mind,” and that this experience, rather than mere computational equivalence between intra- and transcranial cognition, is the strongest argument in favour of the EMT.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  116.  1
    A. Karafillidis (2015). Ontogenesis, Or: If You Want to Study Ontology, Do Not Use Ontology. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):214-216.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: Matuszek omits the decisive notions of autology and re-entry in order to construe and subsequently find Luhmann’s ontology. What is more, the whole endeavour to discover ontology in Luhmann’s work is questionable. It misses the point that a systems theory based on operative constructivism is obviously developed for researching ontogenetic processes.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  117.  2
    V. Kenny (2015). Transcending Illusions and Illusions of Transcendence. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):242-245.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: Starting from the problem of having to write in a language heavily saturated by realism, this commentary limits itself to restating some key notions of radical constructivism, which, by paying attention to the strict limits of what we can claim to know, can more readily eliminate notions such as the “omniscient interpreter.”.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  118.  2
    R. D. King (2015). Does Social Systems Theory Need a General Theory of Autopoiesis? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):183-185.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: The authors claim that it is justified to extend the concept of autopoiesis from its biological origin to other disciplines, predominately those that have a social character. However, the authors do not lay strong enough conceptual grounds to justify this extension of autopoiesis because it is unclear what concept of autopoiesis it is that would achieve this objective, or why (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  119.  2
    P. Kügler (2015). Many Possible Observers Instead of the Global One. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):240-242.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: Even well-founded criticism of the notion of the global observer does not immediately challenge contemporary metaphysical realism. A viable alternative to the latter, and to far-reaching constructivist positions on the other side, originates in replacing global observation with actual and possible local observations.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  120.  3
    D. Laflamme (2015). Communication is Meaning-Based Autopoiesis. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):192-194.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: Autopoiesis based on meaning is a rich conceptual tool. It would be a pity to reduce it to a few general statements on self-reference in social systems.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  121.  2
    H. R. Maturana (2015). What Is Sociology? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):176-179.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: I discuss the foundations of what I have said in my work as a biologist on autopoiesis, molecular autopoietic systems and social systems. I argue that the theme of sociology should be to understand how is it that we come out of the social manner of living that is the foundation of our origin as languaging and reflecting human beings.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  122.  4
    K. C. Matuszek (2015). Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):203-210.
    Context: In the literature concerning the theory of social systems, interest in epistemological and ontological questions has increased in recent years. The controversies regarding a realist vs. constructivist interpretation of Luhmann’s theory, as well as the concept of many realities that correspond to many ontologies, deserve attention. Problem: The paper discusses interrelated ontological and epistemological problems in Luhmann’s systems theory, such as ontology and de-ontologization, realism vs. constructivism, contingency and its limits and one vs. many realities. Method: The paper proposes (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  123.  2
    K. C. Matuszek (2015). Author’s Response: The Epistemological Argument. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):223-226.
    Upshot: The commentaries concentrate mostly on ontological issues but overlook the main epistemological argument in my target article. This argument refers to the conditions that make cognition possible, and to the limits of cognition. These are important for two reasons: they have ontological consequences and they limit the theory’s contingency.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  124.  3
    T. Mavrofides (2015). So, What Do You Think About Luhmann’s Ontology? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):211-212.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: Matuszek’s article is about the way Luhmann reshaped but failed to eliminate ontology. I try to contribute with some thoughts about how Luhmann’s theory is in fact based on certain ontological assumptions.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  125.  1
    K. Pavlov-Pinus (2015). Human Knowledge and “As-If” Knowledge of Ideal Observers. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):239-240.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: My comments are aimed at certain difficulties and ambivalent statements in Gasparyan’s paper that are necessary to clarify before any productive discussion can start. Particularly, the underlying problem of her research should be made more explicit and internal differentiation of various research contexts should be more precise.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  126.  1
    A. Scholl (2015). Searching and Finding Ontology. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):218-221.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: Matuszek’s article criticizes Luhmann’s systems theory in particular and constructivism in general with respect to philosophical inconsistency caused by some ontological implications of constructivist epistemology. Providing a coherent interpretation of ontology and epistemology is worth the effort in order to solve philosophical problems. However, the question arises of whether philosophical reasoning actually is of any relevance for empirical research. I argue that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  127.  3
    E. Solomonova (2015). Primacy of Consciousness and Enactive Imagination. Review of Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation and Philosophy by Evan Thompson. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):267-270.
    Upshot: This interdisciplinary work draws on phenomenology, Indian philosophy, Tibetan Buddhism, cognitive neurosciences and a variety of personal and literary examples of conscious phenomena. Thompson proposes a view of consciousness and self as dynamic embodied processes, co-dependent with the world. According to this view, dreaming is a process of spontaneous imagination and not a delusional hallucination. This work aims at laying the ground for systematic neurophenomenological investigation of first-person experience.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  128.  23
    Mog Stapleton (2015). A Dynamic Expedition Through the Affective Landscape. Review of The Feeling Body: Affective Science Meets the Enactive Mind by Giovanna Colombetti. [REVIEW] Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):274-276.
    Upshot: Colombetti’s book is a contribution to the literature of at least three intellectual communities within philosophy and the cognitive sciences: affective science, embodiment, and enactivism. Despite the emphasis on embodiment over the past ten to fifteen years, and the resurgence of interest in emotion in the mid-to-late twentieth century, affect nevertheless remains underrepresented in the philosophy of mind and cognition, even in the embodiment and enactive communities. In her book, Colombetti helps to close this gap in the literature.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  129.  2
    J. Stewart (2015). Missing: The Socio-Political Dimension. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):185-186.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: Cadenas and Arnold argue in favour of deploying the concept of autopoiesis to study human societies. This OPC makes a case for the opposition: autopoiesis is not an appropriate tool for studying human societies, and attempts to do so both miss out key aspects of human societies and, incidentally, damage the concept of autopoiesis.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  130.  2
    H. Urrestarazu (2015). Towards a Consistent Constructivist General Systems Theory. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):180-183.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: Cadenas and Arnold contribute towards a better understanding of what is at stake in the long debate concerning the applicability of Maturana’s autopoiesis concept to social systems. However, their target article has two shortcomings: it does not provide a deeper understanding of the reasons why Luhmann’s adoption of the autopoiesis concept has proved to be sterile after decades of debate; (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  131.  3
    R. Vanderstraeten (2015). The Forgotten Temporal Dimension of Luhmann’s Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):212-214.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: Matuszek’s article points to some ambiguities in Luhmann’s late work, but the reinterpretations he offers suffer from various sociological and philosophical difficulties. By elaborating on the relevance of time in Luhmann’s operational constructivism, this commentary opens up some alternative interpretations.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  132.  1
    Konrad Werner (2015). Cognitive Evolution and the Idea of a Global Observer. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):245-248.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: I propose a simple way of representing the idea of global observation, broadly understood: a pair composed of an observer and the observer’s location ; the idea of occupying all possible viewpoints at once; the idea of a view from nowhere (no viewpoint. According to the hypothesis proposed in the article, these are all consecutive stages in the evolution of cognition. I elaborate in detail (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  133.  4
    M. Zeleny (2015). Autopoiesis Applies to Social Systems Only. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):186-189.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: I reaffirm and extend the notion of social autopoiesis away from mere labels and descriptions to acting physical components of social systems and societies, ranging from subcellular to biological and human. All self-producing biological organisms are essentially societies of interacting components and therefore notions of autopoiesis and social systems are fundamentally, if not definitionally, interrelated. Some examples of real-life applications (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues