text:
Literature/1923/Ogden

Contextual theory of reference

 * Contextual theory of reference

 * The quadrant brain (qb) coding cycle, or ⊂qb⊃

The unit conversation may be specified as a quadrant brain coding cycle, comparable to the four-stroke internal combustion engine cycle including:
 * suction,
 * compression,
 * explosion, and
 * exhaustion.

The notion of signified, maybe regardless of the decoder and the decoded, appears too simple and ambiguous to serve as a scientific term.

The orthogonal relations are indirect. Horizontally matters the gap between the encoded and the decoded, or truism between symbolism and realism, while vertically matters intersubjectivity or conventionality between the encoder and the decoder. Language problems and studies begin with these gaps.

The metaphor may best explain the two aspects of the meaning in encoding and decoding, such as:
 * explicit vs. implicit
 * denoting vs. connoting
 * literal vs. figurative.

The message or explicit information in the medium only has an energy or potential of either upgrading or degrading the state of implicit knowledge in the user proper.

Knowledge is nowhere but in everybody's mind. Then, Popper's "objective knowledge without a knowing subject" he claims to reside in his "World 3" is a textualist fallacy or at least a misnomer. Such may be DIKW. Either may be a silly category mistake.

The qb model may well be expanded to the global scale, namely, World qb Model (WqbM).

So what?
The UC Berkeley's invisible college looks like breaking with Berkeley's idealism to be exceptionally successful.

 * See also
 * Triangulation (social science)

Excerpts

 * Sign-Situations
 * Throughout almost all our life we are treating things as signs. All experience, using the word in the widest possible sense, is either enjoyed or interpreted (i.e., treated as a sign) or both, and very little of it escapes some degree of interpretation. An account of the process of Interpretation is thus the key to the understanding of the Sign-situation, and therefore the beginning of the wisdom. It is astonishing that although the need for such an account has long been a commonplace in psychology, those concerned with the criticism and organization of our knowledge have with few exceptions entirely ignored the consequences of its neglect. (pp. 50-51)

 * Signs in Perception
 * Through this Theory of Signs then we can not only remove the standard pre-scientific paradoxes, but provide a new basis for Physics. It is commonly assumed that contrasted with what we see are the things we imagine, which are in some sense unreal. This distinction between Vision and Imagination is misleading, and of those things which we rightly claim to see the parts we do not see are as real as those we do. The other side of the moon, which we never see, is as real as the side which the vision perceives. The atoms, whose paths are photographed, the electrons which we do not 'see', are, if this interpretative effort of the physicist be sustained, as real as the signs given to perception from which he starts. When we look at our chairs and tables we 'see' a datum datissimum, then cones, then surfaces, chair, leg-seat-back, wood, bamboo, fibres, cells, molecules, atoms, electrons ... the many senses of 'see' proceeding in an ordered hierarchy as the sign-situations change. And as the point of view, interest, scientific techniques or purpose of investigation alters, so will the levels represented by these references change in their turn. (pp. 85-86)
 * cf.
 * cf.
 * "Dynamic psychology, which begins with motives rather than with sensory input, is a case in point. Instead of asking how a man's actions and experiences result from what he saw, remembered, or believed, the dynamic psychologist asks how they follow from the subject's goals, needs, or instincts."
 * cf.

 * More...
 * The Meaning of Meaning

Subpages

 * /Introduction
 * /Preface
 * /Opening quotations
 * /chapter01
 * /chapter02
 * /chapter03
 * /chapter04
 * /chapter05
 * /chapter06
 * /chapter07
 * /chapter08
 * /chapter09
 * /chapter10
 * /Summary
 * /Appendices
 * /Supplements

Reviews

 * Edward Sapir (1923)
 * "An Approach to Symbolism." The Freeman 7 (22 August 1923) 572-73. Reprinted in Pierre Swiggers (2008) pp. 163-165. http://books.google.com/books?id=jMtRIJoOlOUC

 * John Dewey

 * Bertrand Russell (1926)
 * "The Meaning of Meaning." Dial Vol. 81 (August 1926) pp. 114-121. Reprinted in Gordon (1994) pp. 1-12. http://books.google.com/books?id=fE8JYH1eBoEC

 * cf. 1976/Skinner

 * John Paul Russo
 * "Semantics," in: W. Terrence Gordon, ed., C. K. Ogden and Linguistics (Vol. 2. From Russell to Russo: Reviews and Commentaries) London: Routledge / Thoemmes Press, 1994. p. 373.

 * Words are like 'landmarks in a vast but finite and well nigh inflexible world of symbols', wrote Edward Sapir in his review of the book, 'enlarging or contracting their hospitality, yet always mysteriously themselves. Their hypnotized creators have no recourse but to pronounce them sanctuaries and to look anxiously for the divinity that must dwell in each of them.'

 * From the Back Cover
 * of 1989 impression http://www.amazon.com/Meaning-C-K-Ogden/dp/0156584468
 * "Language is the most important of all the instruments of civilization." The authors state this premise boldly in their preface to "The Meaning of Meaning," a classic work whose significance--and challenge--to the study of language, literature, and philosophy has remained undiminished since its original publication.

 * Much about language continues to be only hazily understood, distorted by our habitual attitude--often one of indifference--toward words, or by lingering assumptions based on discredited theories. What IS the relationship between words and what the words refer to? Between words and the way we think? Can understanding such matters lead to greater precision in communication? Readers considering these questions find themselves at the crossroads of linguistics and communications theory, of literary criticism and philosophy--an interdisciplinary nexus claimed by the increasingly influential field of semiotics--and "The Meaning of Meaning" will prove, as it has over the last six decades, an essential resource.

 * In his introduction Umberto Eco, eminent novelist and, not coincidentally, semiotician, provides a fascinating perspective on this pioneering work that continues to disturb intellectual complacency and provoke thought and discussion.

 * See also
 * /Leon

title: Literature/1923/Ogden


text:
Talk:Solid mechanics

Sir, It was pretty good article on mohr's circle.It would be better if you can give the derivation and reson for that 2θ concept.Thanks for good work.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Solid mechanics


title: Category:1923


text:
Category:Years

This category will include all the yearly pages such as 1923.

title: Category:Years


text:
User:Garyhawley

I'm a Nebraskan at heart living in Colorado.

title: User:Garyhawley


text:
User:Piyush.halphat

I am new to computer and internet but one day surely I will master my computer knowledge and my journey of computer knowlegde begins with my membership with Wikiversity.

title: User:Piyush.halphat


title: File:Nhprc-download-1-m.jpg


text:
User:Fem.tm7/HW7

Problem Description
Following the solution to HW 6.5 found hereUse 2-D Lagrange Interpolation Basis Functions until accuracy of 10-6 at the center is found (x,y)=(0,0).

Given
The boundary is given by a biunit square $$\Omega =\bar{\omega }=\square$$

The governing PDE for the General 2-Dim Model is

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle div(\mathbf K\cdot grad(u))+f=\rho c\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$$ (7.1.1)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *
 * }

Where

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \mathbf K=\mathbf I,
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |

f=0,

\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=0$$ (7.1.2)
 *
 * }

The Essential Boundary Condition is given by

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle g=2|_{\partial\Omega}$$ (7.1.3)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *
 * }

7.1.a) Find Solution using Lagrange Interpolation Basis Functions

7.1.b) Find Solution using Linear Lagrange Element Basis Functions

7.1.a:LIBF Solution
For the x and y one dimensional cases:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |

{L_{i,m}}(x) = \prod\limits_{\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc} {k = 1} \\ {k \ne i} \end{array}}^m {\frac}

$$     (Eq 7.1.4)
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |

{L_{j,n}}(y) = \prod\limits_{\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc} {l = 1} \\ {l \ne j} \end{array}}^n {\frac}

$$     (Eq 7.1.5)
 *
 * }

Combining these for the two dimension case:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |

{N_I}(x,y) = {L_{i,m}}(x) \cdot {L_{j,n}}(y),

$$     (Eq 7.1.6)
 *
 * }

Where I = i + (j - 1)m.

Moving to the Matrix Equations:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

m(w,u) + k(w,u) = f(w,u)

$$     (Eq 7.1.7)
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

m(w,u)= \int\limits_\Omega {w\rho c\frac} d\Omega

$$     (Eq 7.1.8)
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

k(w,u) = \int\limits_\Omega {\nabla wK\nabla u} d\Omega

$$     (Eq 7.1.9)
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

f(w,u) = - \int_{\Gamma h} {whd{\Gamma _h}}  + \int\limits_\Omega  {wf} d\Omega

$$     (Eq 7.1.10)
 *
 * }

For this problem $$\displaystyle \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=0$$ and $$\displaystyle f=1$$. Moving to the matrix form:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

Kd = F

$$     (Eq 7.1.11)
 *
 * }

Now from Eq 7.1.9 we have

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

{K_{ij}} = \int_ {(\nabla N_I)I(\nabla N_J)d{w}}

$$     (Eq 7.1.12) The value of u at x=0 and y=0 for n=m=3 is 2.3125 The value of u at x=0 and y=0 for n=m=4 is 2.2469 The value of u at x=0 and y=0 for n=m=5 is 2.2949
 *
 * }

7.1b:LLEBF
For the x and y one dimensional cases:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |

{L_{i,m}^e}(x) = \prod\limits_{\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc} {k = 1} \\ {k \ne i} \end{array}}^m {\frac}

$$     (Eq 7.1.13)
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |

{L_{j,n}^e}(y) = \prod\limits_{\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc} {k = 1} \\ {k \ne j} \end{array}}^n {\frac}

$$     (Eq 7.1.14)
 *
 * }

Combining these for the two dimension element case:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |

{N_I^e}(x,y) = {L_{i,m}^e}(x) \cdot {L_{j,n}^e}(y),

$$     (Eq 7.1.15)
 *
 * }

Where I = i + (j - 1)m.

Moving to the Matrix Equations:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

m^e(w,u) + k^e(w,u) = f^e(w,u)

$$     (Eq 7.1.16)
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

m^e(w,u)= \int\limits_{\Omega^e} {w\rho c\frac} d\Omega^e

$$     (Eq 7.1.17)
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

k^e(w,u) = \int\limits_{\Omega^e} {\nabla wK^e\nabla u} d\Omega^e

$$     (Eq 7.1.18)
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

f^e(w,u) = - \int_{\Gamma h} {whd{\Gamma _h}}  + \int\limits_{\Omega^e}  {wf} d\Omega^e

$$     (Eq 7.1.19)
 *

 * }

For this problem $$\displaystyle \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=0$$ and $$\displaystyle f=1$$. Moving to the matrix form:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

K^ed^e = F^e

$$     (Eq 7.1.20)
 *

 * }

Here's the Matlab code for the solution to this problem:

Giving the following Plot:

Comments
This figure is obviously incorrect, however, we were unable to run down the errors. Analysis of our scattering matrices showed correct alignment with the global node designation (global nodes enumerated initially on the essential boundary, and then the remaining nodes). Additionally the values do not make any sense either. Displaying the d matrix while running the code showed that the coefficients are being designated correctly for the essential boundary. It is likely the error is either in the multiplication of the coefficients to the basis functions, or the substituting in of values for making the plot. More time would be needed to track down the errors in the code

Part 2a: Dynamic(Transient) case for f=0 by using 2D LIBF
For Transient analysis (heat problem):

$${{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{FF}}}{{{\mathbf{\dot{d}}}}_{\mathbf{F}}}+{{\mathbf{K}}_{\mathbf{FF}}}{{\mathbf{d}}_{\mathbf{F}}}={{\mathbf{F}}_{\mathbf{F}}}-\left( {{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{FE}}}\mathbf{\dot{g}}+{{\mathbf{K}}_{\mathbf{FE}}}\mathbf{g} \right)$$

In this problem, $$\mathbf{g}$$ is a constant, so $$\mathbf{\dot{g}}=0$$.

Thus, $${{{\mathbf{\dot{d}}}}_{\mathbf{F}}}=\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{FF}}^{\mathbf{-1}}\left( {{\mathbf{F}}_{\mathbf{F}}}-{{\mathbf{K}}_{\mathbf{FE}}}\mathbf{g}-{{\mathbf{K}}_{\mathbf{FF}}}{{\mathbf{d}}_{\mathbf{F}}} \right)$$

The initial condition: $$u(\mathbf{x},t=0)=xy$$

$$\rho c=3$$

Heat source: $$f=0$$

The plot for uh vs.t at center:

Part 2b1: Dynamic(Transient) case for f=1 by using 2D LIBF
Similar to part 2a.

Heat source: $$f=1$$

The plot for uh vs.t at center:

Problem Description
Solve the vibrating membrane problem using 2-D Lagrangian Interpolation Basis Functions (LIBF) with $$\displaystyle n=m=2,4,6,8...$$ by until an accuracy of $$\displaystyle 10^{-6}$$ is reached at the center $$\displaystyle (x,y)=(0,0)$$.

For the dynamic case, Solve the free vibration problem:
 * $$ \mathbf{K \phi}=\lambda \mathbf{ M \phi}$$

For the first three eigenpairs:
 * $$ (\lambda_i,\mathbf{\phi_i}), i=1,2,3.$$

Given
The governing partial differential equation (PDE) is

 * $$\displaystyle T\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}} \left[ \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{j}} \right ] + f = \rho \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} $$

 * where
 * The domain $$\displaystyle \Omega = \overline{\omega}=\Box$$ is a biunit square

 * $$\displaystyle f(\mathbf{x}) = 1$$ in $$\displaystyle \Omega$$

 * 1) Static Case:
 * $$\displaystyle \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2 } = 0 $$
 * 2) Dynamic/Transient Case:
 * $$\displaystyle \rho = 3 $$

The essential boundary condition is defined over the entire boundary:

 * $$\displaystyle g=0$$ on $$\displaystyle \partial u$$

Part 1: Static case
The weak form for the vibrating membrane can be written as follows:

\displaystyle

m(w,u) + k(w,u) = f(w,u)

$$

Examining each term and simplifying with the given conditions yields:

\displaystyle

m(w,u) = \int\limits_\Omega {w\rho \frac} d\Omega =0

$$

\displaystyle

k(w,u) = \int\limits_\Omega {T\nabla w\nabla u} d\Omega

$$

\displaystyle

f(w,u) = - \int_{\Gamma h} {whd{\Gamma _h}}  + \int\limits_\Omega  {wf} d\Omega= \int\limits_\Omega  {wf} d\Omega

$$

\displaystyle

Kd = F

$$ Now the basis functions are developed to plug into the preceding equations. For the 1D case the LIBF Basis function can be written:

\displaystyle

{L_{i,m}}(x) = \prod\limits_{\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc} {k = 1} \\ {k \ne i} \end{array}}^m {\frac}

$$

It is extended to the the 2D case as:

\displaystyle

{N_I}(x,y) = {L_{i,m}}(x) \cdot {L_{j,n}}(y)

$$

where

\displaystyle

I = i + (j - 1)m

$$ Two examples of basis functions, $$\displaystyle N(x,y)$$ are shown below:

(A)n=m=4, I=1

(B)n=4, I=7

One can see from the plots of the basis functions that they both satisfy the constraint breaking solution (CBS). For example the first plot shows the value to be one at the first node (I=1, (x,y)=(-1,-1)) and zero at all other nodes.

Plugging in the basis fucntions yields:

\displaystyle

{K_{ij}} = \int_ T{(\nabla N_I^e)(\nabla N_J^e)d{w^e}}

$$ Since $$\displaystyle T$$ is a constant it can be pulled out of the integral.

\displaystyle

{K_{ij}} = T\int_ {(\nabla N_I^e)(\nabla N_J^e)d{w^e}}

$$ Considering the essential boundary condition is the outline of the biunit, one special treatment is needed. We reconstruct $$\displaystyle {K_f}$$ and $$\displaystyle {F_f}$$, so that we can solve for matrix $$\displaystyle d$$. Firstly, considering

\displaystyle

{L_{i,m}}({x_j}) = {\delta _{i,m}} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc} {1,forj = i} \\ {0,forj \ne i} \end{array}} \right.

$$ For all $$\displaystyle {d_i}$$ belong to the nodes on the essential boundary condition, we can get the value directly:

\displaystyle

{d_i} = 0,where(i \in ess.b.c)

$$ For the unknown or free coefficients$$\displaystyle {d_F}$$, which are located in the middle area of the biunit and number is $${(n - 2)^2}$$, we need to construct $$\displaystyle {K_F}$$ and $$\displaystyle {F_F}$$ to solve for the free coefficients.

\displaystyle

{K_F}{d_F} = {F_F}

$$ Note: The dimension of $$\displaystyle {K_F}$$ is $$\displaystyle {n^2} \times {(n - 2)^2}$$, the dimension of $$\displaystyle {d_F}$$ is $$\displaystyle {(n - 2)^2} \times 1$$ , the dimension of $$\displaystyle {F_F}$$ is $$\displaystyle {n^2} \times 1$$

The following matlab routine was adapted from Team 7 #6.5 to perform the integration and solve for the unknown displacements.

Results with 3x3 Nodes

 * $$\displaystyle u(0,0)=1.946157094594595$$

Results with 4x4 Nodes

 * $$\displaystyle u(0,0)=2.492872807017544$$

Results with 5x5 Nodes

 * $$\displaystyle u(0,0)=1.976986310175030$$

Comments on Results
One can see that each solution satisfies the essential boundary condition. That is, the displacement is equal to zero around the entire boundary. The maximum displacement occurs at the center which is also an expected result. The point furthest from the essential boundary (the center) in this case should have the largest displacement because the tension and transverse forces are constant across the entire domain.

Unfortunately performing the analysis with more than 5x5 nodes was too computational costly since the routine relied on symbolic integration. Also, as seen from the values of displacement at the center for each case, no convergence was found. An alternative routine using adaptive Simpson quadrature was adapted from 7.1 to compute the solution.

Results with 3x3 Nodes using adaptive Simpson quadrature

 * $$\displaystyle u(0,0)=0.078125000000000$$

Results with 4x4 Nodes using adaptive Simpson quadrature

 * $$\displaystyle u(0,0)=0.078124999068478$$

Results with 5x5 Nodes using adaptive Simpson quadrature

 * $$\displaystyle u(0,0)=0.073730557049503$$

This method shows better convergence than the above method using symbolic integration.

Part 2: Dynamic case
The initial and boundary conditions for the dynamic case are defined by

 * $$\displaystyle u(\mathbf{x},t=0) = u_s^h (x) \quad \forall \mathbf{x} \in \Omega$$
 * $$\displaystyle \dot{u}(\mathbf{x},t=0) = 0 \quad \forall \mathbf{x} \in \Omega$$
 * $$\displaystyle T=4$$ (tension per unit length)
 * $$\displaystyle f(\mathbf{x}, t)=0$$ (no applied transverse force)

 * where $$\displaystyle u_s^h (x)$$ refers to the calculated transverse displacement of the static case (above).

Before the transient analysis can be performed, the first three eigenpairs ($$\displaystyle \lambda_i, \ \mathbf{\phi}_i$$) need to be determined from the generalized eigenvalue problem. From this the natural frequencies of vibration can be determined. Matlab may be used in this case by the "eig" operator. However the generalized eigenvalue problem must be of the form $$\displaystyle \mathbf{A} \phi = \lambda \phi$$. In our case $$\displaystyle \mathbf{A} = \mathbf{M}^{-1} \mathbf{K}$$.

Part 3: Dynamic case with asymmetric u0
This analysis is identical to the previous section (Problem 7.2-2) with the exception that the initial displacement is asymmetric and is defined and plotted below.

 * $$\displaystyle u(\mathbf{x},t=0) = (x+1) \left(y+\frac{1}{2} \right ) cos \left(\frac{\pi}{2}x \right ) cos \left(\frac{\pi}{2}y \right )\quad \forall \mathbf{x} \in \Omega$$..

7.3:Solve for a circle with unit radius through quadratic and triangular element meshes
Let $$\Omega$$ = circle with unit radius. Find static solution such that T=4, f(x)=1 in $$\Omega$$, g=0 on boundaries to 10^-6 accuracy at center. Use Both quad and triangular elements. Use symmetry 1/4 of the total meshes. plot deformed shape in 3-D

Solution
Nodal distribution of quad elements Element distribution of quad elements Elements	nodes numbers 1 ->	1	2	3	4 2 ->	4	3	5	6 3 ->	6	5	7	8 4 -> 8	7	9	10 5->	2	11	12	3 6->	3	12	13	5 7->	5	13	14	7 8->	7	14	15	9 9->	11	16	17	12 10->	12	17	18	13 11->	13	18	19	14 12->	14	19	20	15 13->	16	21	22	17 14->	17	22	23	18 15->	18	23	24	19 16->	19	24	25	20 Nodal coordinates X              Y 1	0.00E+00	0.00E+00 2	2.50E-01	0.00E+00 3	2.50E-01	2.50E-01 4	0.00E+00	2.50E-01 5	2.40E-01	4.98E-01 6	0.00E+00	5.00E-01 7	2.22E-01	7.42E-01 8	0.00E+00	7.50E-01 9	1.95E-01	9.81E-01 10	0.00E+00	1.00E+00 11	5.00E-01	0.00E+00 12	4.98E-01	2.40E-01 13	4.77E-01	4.77E-01 14	4.38E-01	7.06E-01 15	3.83E-01	9.24E-01 16	7.50E-01	0.00E+00 17	7.42E-01	2.22E-01 18	7.06E-01	4.38E-01 19	6.43E-01	6.43E-01 20	5.56E-01	8.31E-01 21	1.00E+00	0.00E+00 22	9.81E-01	1.95E-01 23	9.24E-01	3.83E-01 24	8.31E-01	5.56E-01 25	7.07E-01	7.07E-01

The displacements obtained... nodes		displacements 1	>	-0.0034 2	>	-0.0009 3	>	-0.0001 4	>	-0.0009 5	>	-0.0001 6	>	-0.0007 7	>	-0.0001 8	>	-0.0007 9	>	-0.0001 10	>	-0.0003 11	>	-0.0007 12	>	-0.0001 13	>	0 14	>	0 15	>	0 16	>	-0.0006 17	>	-0.0001 18	>	0 19	>	0 20	>	0.0005 21	>	-0.0003 22	>	-0.0001 23	>	0.0001 24	>	0.0007 25	>	0.0019

Elements distribution 1	>	1	2	3	 2	>	3	2	4	 3	>	3	4	5	 4	>	5	4	6	 5	>	5	6	7	 6	>	7	6	8	 7	>	2	9	4	 8	>	4	9	10	 9	>	4	10	6	 10	>	6	10	11	 11	>	6	11	8	 12	>	8	11	12	 13	>	9	13	10	 14	>	10	13	14	 15	>	10	14	11	 16	>	11	14	15	 17	>	11	15	12	 18	>	12	15	16

Nodal coordinates of triangular distribution

X	         Y		X	Y 1	>	0.00E+00	0.00E+00 2	>	3.33E-01	0.00E+00 3	>	0.00E+00	3.33E-01 4	>	3.30E-01	3.30E-01 5	>	0.00E+00	6.67E-01 6	>	3.04E-01	6.53E-01 7	>	0.00E+00	1.00E+00 8	>	2.59E-01	9.66E-01 9	>	6.67E-01	0.00E+00 10	>	6.53E-01	3.04E-01 11	>	5.96E-01	5.96E-01 12	>	5.00E-01	8.66E-01 13	>	1.00E+00	0.00E+00 14	>	9.66E-01	2.59E-01 15	>	8.66E-01	5.00E-01 16	>	7.07E-01	7.07E-01 matlab code used cgx code use pnt p0      0.00000        0.00000        0.00000 pnt p00A    0.00000        0.00000        1.00000 pnt p00G    0.70711        0.00000        0.70711 pnt p00I    1.00000        0.00000        0.00000 line l00A p0 p00I 3 line l00C p00A p0 3 line l00G p00A p00G p0 3 line l00I p00G p00I p0 3 gsur a004 + BlEND + l00A - l00I - l00G + l00C ElTY all tr3 MESH all plot ea all

Result
The above program did not execute correctly. The plot and displacements obtained are not correct!! The nodes and elements were obtained by calculiX CGX

Problem Description
An energy balance on a two dimensional unit square is performed. This square has a prescribed temperature of 2 for all y at x=1. The square also has a temperature of 2 for all x with y=-1. This is given by the following equations and is seen in the figure below with $$\displaystyle \Gamma_g$$.

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle T(-1,y)=T(x,1)=2$$ B.C.1 and 2
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

The square also looses energy through a heat flux of 3 for all x when y=1. This is given by the following equation and is in the figure below for $$\displaystyle \Gamma_h$$.

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle q=\vec n\cdot\mathbf K(\vec\nabla T)|_{x,y=1}$$ B.C.3
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Where n is the surface normal. Lastly, for all y at x=-1 the boundary of the square looses heat through Newton's Law of Cooling. This is given in the equation and figure below for $$\displaystyle\Gamma_H$$.

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle q=H(u(x=-1,y)-u_\infty)$$ B.C.4
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Where H is the convective coefficient and $$\displaystyle u_\infty$$ is the temperature of the fluid outside the square far away.

Part 1: Develop Weak Form
Develop the Weak form of General 2-Dimensional Model:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\cdot K_{ij} \nabla_j u+f(x,y)=\rho c\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$$ (6.10.1)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

with

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \mathbf{K}=\mathbf{I}$$
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |

$$\displaystyle f(\underline{x},t)=0$$

$$\displaystyle \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=0$$

$$\displaystyle g=2,h=3,H=.5,u_\infty =0.1$$

(6.10.2)
 *

 * }

Solution
To develop the weak form one must first develop the strong form. Performing an energy balance on a differential portion of the square gives the following figure:

Performing a heat balance gives:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle H_{in}-H_{out}+H_{generated}=H_{stored}$$
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

where

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle H_{in}=q_x|x+q_y|y$$
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |

$$\displaystyle H_{out}=q_x|_{x+dx}+q_y|_{y+dy}$$

$$\displaystyle H_{generated}=f(x)$$

$$\displaystyle H_{stored}=\rho c \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$$
 *

 * }

giving

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle q_x|_x+q_y|_y-q_x|_{x+dx}-q_y|{y+dy}+f(x)=\rho c\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$$
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Using a Taylor Series:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle q_x|_{x+dx}=q_x(x+dx)=q_x(x)+\frac{\partial q_x}{\partial x}+\dots$$
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle q_y|_{y+dy}=q_y(y+dy)=q_y(y)+\frac{\partial q_y}{\partial y}+\dots$$
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Plugging these equations and canceling out terms:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle -\frac{\partial q_x}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial q_y}{\partial y}+f(x,y)=\rho c\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$$
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Using the constitutive equation for energy transfer in this medium, Fourier's Law:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \vec q=-\mathbf K\nabla T$$
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Substituting in this equation, which is a vector equation and could be written $$\displaystyle q_{x_i}=-K_{i,j}\cdot\nabla_j T$$ gives:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} K_{ij} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} u+f(x,y)=\rho c\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$$
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Where we have written the solution in Einstein Notation and are using $$\displaystyle u$$ instead of $$\displaystyle T$$ for temperature. G2DM2.0/D1 gives the following where the Einstein Notation has been altered for the common terms in vector calculus divergence and gradient:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle div(\underline{I}\cdot gradu)=0$$ (6.10.3)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \vec n(\Gamma_h)\cdot\underline{I}\cdot gradu|_{\Gamma_h}=h=3$$ (6.10.4)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle u(\Gamma_g)=g=2$$ (6.10.5)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle H[u(\Gamma_H)-u_\infty ]=-\vec n(\Gamma_H)\cdot\underline{I}\cdot gradu(\Gamma_H)$$ (6.10.6)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Where $$\Gamma_g$$ represents the location on the boundary of the essential boundary condition, $$\Gamma_h$$ represents the location of the natural boundary condition, and $$\Gamma_H$$ represents the location of Newton's Law of Cooling boundary condition as stated previously.

Part 1: Weak Form
The first step to formulate the general weak form is to multiply by a weighting function $$w(x,y)$$ and integrate over the domain of the problem, represented by $$\Omega$$:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \int w(x,y)(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\cdot K_{ij} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} u+f(x,y)-\rho c\frac{\partial u}{\partial t})d\Omega=0$$ (6.10.7)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Multiplying the natural and Newton's Law of Cooling Boundary conditions by the same weighting function:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle w(\Gamma_h)[n_i\cdot(\Gamma_h)K_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}u|_{\Gamma_h}-3]=0$$ (6.10.8)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle w(\Gamma_H)[H[u(\Gamma_H)-u_\infty]+n_i(\Gamma_h)K_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}u|_{\Gamma_H}]=0$$ (6.10.9)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Using integration by parts ($$u=w$$ and $$dv=div(\underline{I}\cdot gradu)d\Omega$$) as used here and the fundamental theorem of calculus gives:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \int \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}(wK_{ij}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_j})d\Omega-\int\frac{\partial w}{\partial x_i}K_{ij}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_j}d\Omega=0$$ (6.10.10)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Applying the divergence theorem on the first term:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \int \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}(wK_{ij}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_j})d\Omega=\int wn_iK_{ij}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_j}d(\partial\Omega)$$ (6.10.11)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Since $$\partial\Omega$$ is the boundary of the domain, it can be split up in

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \int wn_iK_{ij}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_j}d(\partial\Omega)=\int_{\Gamma_g}wn_iK_{ij}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_j}d\Gamma_g + \int_{\Gamma_h}wn_i K_{ij} \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_j}d\Gamma_h+\int_{\Gamma_H}w n_i K_{ij}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_j}d\Gamma_H$$ (6.10.12)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

We will take advantage of Eq. 7.10.12 to remove the unknown flux on the essential boundary condition the arbitrary weighting function will be set to zero on the essential boundary, $$w(\Gamma_g)=0$$. For now, plugging everything in gives the general weak form:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle \int wn_iK_{ij}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_j}d(\partial\Omega)-\int_\Omega\frac{\partial w}{\partial x_i}K_{ij}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_j}d\Omega-\int_\Omega w\rho c\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}d\Omega=0
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |

$$     (Eq 6.10.13)
 *

 * }

Part 2: Semi Discrete Equations
To develop the semidiscrete version first form the following functions with the LIBF:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle u\simeq u^h = \sum_{n=1}^{a*b}d_n\prod_{(j=1,j\neq n)}^a \prod_{(k=1,k\neq n)}^b\frac{(x-x_j)(y-y_k)}{(x_n-x_j)(y_n-y_k)}=\sum_{n=1}^a*d_n*N_n(x)$$ (6.10.14)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle w\simeq w^h = \sum_{m=1}^{a*b}c_m\prod_{(j=1,j\neq m)}^a \prod_{(k=1,k\neq m)}^b\frac{(x-x_j)(y-y_k)}{(x_m-x_j)(y_m-y_k)}=\sum_{m=1}^a*c_m*N_m(x)$$ (6.10.15)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Substituting Eq.'s 7.10.2, 7.10.12, 7.10.14, and 7.10.15 into the weak form:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle -\int_{\Gamma_h}\sum_{m}c_mN_m(x,1)3d\Gamma_h-\int_{\Gamma_H}\sum_{m}c_mN_m(-1,y)0.5[\sum_{n}d_nN_n(-1,y)-.1]d\Gamma_H-\int_\Omega\frac{\partial \sum_{m}c_mN_m}{\partial x_i}I_{ij}\frac{\partial \sum_{n}d_nN_n}{\partial x_j}d\Omega=0 $$ (6.10.16)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

Factoring out the constant $$c_m$$ and recognizing subscripts m,n,i, and j mean to sum over:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle c_m\Bigg [-\int_{\Gamma_h}N_m(x,1)3d\Gamma_h-\int_{\Gamma_H}N_m(-1,y)0.5[d_nN_n(-1,y)-.1]d\Gamma_H-\int_\Omega\frac{\partial N_m}{\partial x_i}I_{ij}\frac{\partial d_nN_n}{\partial x_j}d\Omega\Bigg]=0   $$ (6.10.17)
 * style="width:10%; |
 * style="width:10%; |
 *

 * }

We will now move to put this into matrix form similarly to this previous work. In order to do this the numbering of the nodes must begin on the essential boundary. This allows partitioning of the matrices as before, with essential and free components. By numbering the nodes on the essential boundary first, this means the basis functions, $$\displaystyle N_m,N_n$$ first functions will be on the essential boundary (m and n correspond to the node number). With this recognition we can form the following:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \vec C=\begin{bmatrix} \vec C_E \\ \vec C_F\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ \vec C_F\end{bmatrix} $$     (6.10.18)
 *

 * }

The zero in equation comes from satisfying the constraint breaking solution where the coefficient at the essential boundary condition for the only nonzero basis function coefficient on the weighting function is zero. Hence the subscript E in equation 5.3.11 is for essential. Looking at the coefficients for uh:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \vec d=\begin{bmatrix} \vec d_E \\ \vec d_F\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix} g \\ \vec d_F\end{bmatrix} $$     (6.10.19)
 *

 * }

Likewise here, g is the value at the essential boundary condition. Since there is only one nonzero basis function here, the coefficient (since the basis function is one) must be equal to the essential boundary condition value. The subscript F can be thought of as free and will be determined.

Now defining the following

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \tilde k(N_m,N_n)=\int_0^1\int_0^1(\frac{d}{dx}N_m)I_{ij}(\frac{d}{dx}N_n)dxdy+\int_{\Gamma_H}.5Nn(-1,y)d\Gamma_H $$     (6.10.20)
 *

 * }

This shows how the far left integral term of equation 5.3.10 can be written in components of a matrix. Note the additional term that contains the constants $$\displaystyle d_n$$ which is what the K matrix will multiply. Additionally defining:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle K_{EE}=[\tilde k(N_{m=1\rightarrow a+b-1},N_{n=1\rightarrow a+b-1})] $$     (6.10.21)
 *

 * }

Where m increments from 1 to a+b-1 (a is number of x nodes and b is number of y nodes) and n increments from 1 to a+b-1. These end values (a+b-1) correspond to the number of nodes that are found on the essential boundary, hence being part of the $$\displaystyle K_{EE}$$ matrix. Continuing on with the defining:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle K_{EF}=[\tilde k(N_{m=1\to a+b-1},N_{n=a+b\to a*b}] $$     (6.10.22)
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle K_{FE}=[\tilde k(N_{m=a+b\to a*b},N_{n=1\to a+b-1})] $$     (6.10.23)
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle K_{FF}=[\tilde k(N_{m=a+b\to a*b},N_{n=a+b\to a*b})] $$     (6.10.24)
 *

 * }

Giving:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \mathbf K=\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf K_{EE} \mathbf K_{EF} \\ \mathbf K_{FE} \mathbf K_{FF}\end{bmatrix} $$     (6.10.25)
 *

 * }

It can be seen that the subscripts E correspond the the essential nodes, and consequently the basis functions on the essential nodes (1 to a+b-1 where minus one takes into account double counting of the point shared with the connecting essential boundary borders). The F subscript corresponds to the free nodes (a+b to a*b) or free basis functions where the coefficient must still be determined.

Lastly, combining the constants into:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \mathbf F = [\tilde f_m] $$     (6.10.26)
 *

 * }

Where,

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \tilde f_m=-\int_{\Gamma_h}3N_m(x,1)d\Gamma_h + \int_{\Gamma_H}.5N_m(0,y)d\Gamma_H $$     (6.10.27)
 *

 * }

Putting it all together:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \vec C \cdot \mathbf K\mathbf d=\begin{bmatrix}0\\\vec C_F\end{bmatrix}\cdot \Big (\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf K_{EE} \mathbf K_{EF} \\ \mathbf K_{FE} \mathbf K_{FF}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf g\\\vec d_F\end{bmatrix}-\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf F_E\\ \mathbf F_F\end{bmatrix} \Big )=0 $$     (6.10.28) Now, our weighting function is arbitrary so what is in parenthesis corresponding to CF must equal zero. Writing this out explicitly as a simple example for four Nodes gives the following:
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}K_{11}K_{12}K_{13}K_{14}\\K_{21}K_{22}K_{23}K_{24}\\K_{31}K_{32}K_{33}K_{34}\\K_{41}K_{42}K_{43}K_{44}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}g\\g\\g\\d_4\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}f_1+r_1\\f_2+r_2\\f_3+r_3\\f_4\end{bmatrix} $$     (6.10.29)
 *

 * }

The first 3 g's correspond to the essential boundary, so in order to solve for our unknown d4, in terms of our knowns, we rearrange to get the following:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}K_{44}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}d_4\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}f_4-K_{41}g-K_{42}g-K_{43}g\end{bmatrix} $$     (6.10.30)
 *

 * }

Part 3: MATLAB Solution and Plot
The following is the MATLAB code used to find the coefficients using Part 2's steps:

This gave the following plot with 2 nodes in the x and y direction (4 nodes total) and a Temperature at x=y=.5 of 2.6437:

For 3 nodes in the x and y direction (9 nodes total) and a Temperature at x=y=.5 of 4.7215:

Lastly, 4 nodes in the x and y direction (16 nodes total) and a Temperature at x=y=.5 of 7.0725:

Comments
Obtained a plot qualitatively similar to previous homework, but quantitatively closer to the correct solution (assuming a large negative temperature would be incorrect). Qualitatively the graph behaves as it should. The boundary for Newton's Law of Cooling, or convective heat loss, shows a slower decrease in temperature when compared to the conductive boundary. This makes sense since the convective coefficient of the fluid is .5 and serves to slightly insulate the heat loss in comparison to the conductive boundary condition. However, At the edge where the convective and conductive boundary conditions are applied the temperture still drops below zero, which is very possibly incorrect since the temperature is specified on the convective boundary as .1. To drop below the temperature of the surrounding fluid when two of the objects sides are held at a higher temperature than the surrounding fluid seems highly unlikely. But, we were unable to run down the error in the code.

title: User:Fem.tm7/HW7


text: File:Parsing.jpg

title: File:Parsing.jpg


text: File:Appleassociations.jpg

title: File:Appleassociations.jpg


text:
User:Gilbertlopez04/Physic 15

Physic For everyday Phenomena
What is physics? In our daily lives we ecnounter the many experience that life has to offer, for which we as a people are still understanding.

The Newtonian Revolution
Summary

 * 1) Average and instaneous speed
 * 2) Velocity
 * 3) Acceleration
 * 4) Graphing motion
 * 5) Uniform aceleration

Average and instaneous speed
Terms

or Average speed= distance/ time of travel. Which we can express this as s= d/t [example: If a car travels 180 KM in 3 hours (50 KM in first hour, 62 KM in second hour, and 68 KM in third hour, the average speed of the car (s)=(50+62+68)/3=60KM/hour]
 * 1) Average speed is defined as the distance traveled dived by the time. it is the average rate at which distance is covered. Instanteous speed is the rate at which distance is being covered at a given instant in time and requires that we use very short time intervals for computation.
 * 2) Average speed equals the distance traveled divided by the time of travel.

Sample question: Watching grass grow

Question: the units km/h or m/s have an appropriate size for moving cars or people. Many other process move much more slowly, through. What units would have an appropriate size for measuring the average speedd with which a blade of grass grows?

Solution: When grass is well fertilzed and watered, it is not unsual for it to grow 3 to 6 centimeter in the course of a week. This can be seen by mearsuing the length of the cloppings after moving. If we mleausered the speed in m/s, we would obtain an extrmely small number that would not provide a good intuitive sense of the rate of growth. The units of cm/week or mm/day would provide a better indication of this speed.

An example- If we travel a distance of 260 miles in 5 hours,as it is likely that the trip take place at the speed of 52 MPH? of course not; the speed goes up and down as the rad goes up and down, when we overtake slower vechicles, when rests breaks occur, or when the h highway patrol looms on the horizon. If we want to know how fast we are going at a given instant in time, we read the speedometer, which displays the instance speed of 55 mph.
 * 1) Instantaneous speed is the rate which distance is being covered at a given instant in time. It is found by computing the average speed for a very short time interval i which the speed dose not change apreciabley.

We find an average

title: User:Gilbertlopez04/Physic 15


title: File:Fe1.s11.mtg40.djvu


title: File:Nm1.s11.mtg40.djvu


text:
Communication and Identities in Institutional Arenas - Part I/Per Linell: Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically. Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making

Summary and reflections on Linell, Per 2009: Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically – Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making

Editor’s introduction, Preface, chapters 1, 2, 5, 9, 16, 20
In the editor’s introduction to the book, Jaan Valsiner emphasizes the thorough analytical work of Per Linell in developing the dialogical approach both in the book and in his academic career. Connecting Linell’s work to the field of cultural psychology, Valsiner illustrates some of the challenges of introducing a new approach to the examination of the self, mind and society, and then moves on to pointing out that the book at hand is important “because it leads to generalized knowledge about ways the dialogical ways of thinking are organized”(2009: xxii).

In the preface of the book, Linell compares the “dialogical turn” of human sciences to the “linguistic turn” of social sciences in the 1970s, but concludes immediately that dialogue is more fundamental than language, as it entails more semiotic means employed by human beings than language alone (2009:xxvii). This book, Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically can be seen as a general overview of what Linell calls dialogical theories of human sense-making. “Dialogical” is defined as follows: when thinking, acting and interacting with each other and the world, human beings perform cognitive and communicative actions. If the world where these actions and interactions occur is understood dialogically, it can only be described as “dynamic, multi-aspectual and with potentials for different interpretations” (2009: xvii). Throughout all phenomena a dialogicity occurs, and the focus of the dialogical approach is thus relations between situations and cultures, selves and others, interactions and thinking and so on (2009: xvii). The preface, after having presented short overview of the entire book, ends in a rather sympathetic statement from Linell’s part, where he claims that the book is a reflection of his own “struggle to formulate a version and a vision of dialogism”.

Chapter 1 Conceptual and terminological preliminaries
Chapter 1 provides the reader with a description of the different interpretations of the words such as “dialogue” and “dialogical” in terms of language, communication and thinking. A commonly used definition of the word “dialogue”, is “conversation, or verbal interaction, between two or more participants” (p.3), a definition that seems to leave out other ways of communicating than the verbal (!). Linell points out, however, that in his study of dialogicality, “interaction in contexts” is a central meaning of the word (p.3). In terms of other choices of terminology, I find it rather interesting that Linell, after having stated that “polylogue” and “multilogue” are two possible terms to be used concerning interaction between several participants, chooses to work with “dialogue” and then use terms such as “dyadic” or “triadic” to underline the number of participants. To me, this is interesting, as the reasons for doing this are similar (as I understand it) with many other reasons for deciding to use a poly- or a multi- prefixed terms; and have to do with both gaining greater comprehensibility as well as using concepts that reflect the phenomena studied. Cf. the use of concepts of bilingualism/multilingualism or bilingual/multilingual.

After concluding that his interest in dialogue and dialogicality deals with meaning-making activities mediated in and through language, Linell discusses what he calls the three senses of dialogue in section 1.2; The first of these is the concrete, empirical sense of dialogue “face-to-face- interaction through talk” (but also interaction via technical aids such as telephones, television, radio, e-mail, chat, sms and so on)(p.4). Dialogue in the concrete, empirical sense is tightly connected to our everyday experiences. The second is the normative sense of dialogue, common in “social philosophy, and society at large”, involving the idea of a dialogue as a “high-quality interaction” (p.5). The normative theories of dialogue are sometimes far from “reality” or what can be observed empirically. The third sense of dialogue has to do with its abstract and comprehensive status, dealing with “any kind of human sense-making, semiotic practice, action, interaction, thinking or communication” (p.5) To exemplify, this could mean “ the internal dialogue within the self”or “ the dialogue between ideas or discourses” (p.6). It is in this final, abstract and comprehensive sense that Linell wishes to develop his theoretical framework, dealing with dialogism (“epistemological framework”) and dialogicality (“essences of human condition”)(p.7)

Chapter 2 Dialogism and its axiomatic assumptions
In the beginning of ch 2, yet another condition for the use of the concept dialogicality is offered: “ a person is interdependent with others’ experiences, actions, thoughts and utterances; a person is not an autonomous individual who can decide everything for him- or herself, as monologism tends to assume” (p.11) Therefore, it seems natural to accept when the author suggests that the term “dialogical” can in many instances be replaced with terms “social, interactional and contextual” instead (p.12, also suggested as key concepts on p. 14) and states many opposing ideas against thinking that places focus on “internal” mental processes among individuals. In 2.3, Linell presents an interesting point of departure for defining dialogism, which has to do with its “other-orientation”. As stated above, dialogism focuses interdependency between individuals, cultures and situations and opposes the idea of an autonomous individual. Referring to Bakhtin (1981), Linell underlines the responsive and anticipatory nature of discourse. (p.13) Here, a notion that occurred to me is that the focus on “the other” is something to be recognized from the postcolonial theory construction (see also summary of Ch 5 below).

The remainder of the chapter is designated to discuss different core concepts of dialogism. The first of them is interactionism, based on an idea that communication and cognition/thinking always involve interaction with the surrounding world and are dialogically intertwined. Furthermore, dialogism “must regard interactions, activities and situations as primary” (p.15). Linell presents also an interesting, yet challenging idea of silent reading as “interactions between the text and the reader” (p.15). Another core concept within dialogism is contextualism, referring to the interdependentness of sensemaking-processses, situated discourses and contexts. For sense-making, the contexts, whether concrete situations, co-texts, local interactional accomplishments or background knowledge, are essential. (p.16-17). The third core concept that I will comment upon here is communicative constructionism, referring to interactive construction of meaning. Linell relates this concept to the term social constructionism and suggest yet another version; “contextual social constructionism” (p.19). At the end of chapter 2, Linell once again states what dialogism is all about: “ a meta-theoretical framework for human sciences”, primarily concerned with processes of human meaning-making in and through language (p.28) and the unit of analysis of dialogism is situated interaction (p.30)

Chapter 5 Dialogue and the other
This chapter, together with chapter 9 (examined below), form the two core chapters in the text I have studied. Its point of departure is dialogism’s emphasis on the social nature of interaction, and all individuals’ interdependence of others. That “other” may be a direct partner in interpersonal interaction, a generalized other or a “third party other” (p.69). To illustrate these ideas, Linell presents the reader with an empirical example, a transcript from a dialogue from a criminal court trial. By using the empirical example as an aid, he then illustrates how not only the parties participating in the interaction are interdependent in meaning-making and working thus as coauthors for eachother’s contributions, but also how their utterances are sequentially constructed and often subjected to negotiation of interpretation (Pp. 71-74), the latter the kind of argumentation that is commonly recognized from CA theory. As for the third party others in the dialogue presented, there are a number of those (yet not seen in the transcript); the judge,the jury, the audience, and so on.

When moving on from dealing with the empirical example to theorizing about the other, Linell concludes that we, in a Bakhtinian sense, “in languaging use each other’s words” (p.76). He also critically examines many ideas of intrapersonal construction of meaning (referring to Dewey, Kant and Piaget to name a few), thus emphasizing the social construction of meaning instead (p.78-79). Within the dialogical theory there is a strong belief that the individual mind evolves in constant interaction with others (p.80). This other-orientedness means a certain focus on both commonality/intersubjectivity with others and difference/alterity from others. Intersubjectivity, or common knowledge, norms, assumptions and commitments is an important ground for interaction, as it can be considered a kind of other-orientedness, Linell states, referring to many theorists who have discussed the concept before him (p. 81-82). Alterity, then, emphasizes the difference and reoccurring tensions between “us” and “the others”, standing in a dialogical relation to each other (p. 82). The strangeness and outsideness of the other are an essential part of fruitful dialogues, or interactionally constructed meaning making. It is in the unknown other that we see ourselves. The ideas of commonalities and alterities are then connected with Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development and the relations between individuals in interactions, and furthermore, to learning. By doing this, Linell presents the ZPD as a dialogical phenomenon (pp. 85-86). He then moves on to introducing the concept of complementarity as a bridge between intersubjectivity and alterity, describing the concept as a mostly positive, cooperative form of interaction (pp.86-87). From the focus on the other that is perhaps considered in a more dyadic relation, the remainder of the chapter moves on the deal with interaction with more than two parties. Linell introduces Marková’s terms “Ego” and “Alter”, which roughly correspond to “I” and “thou” and then moves on to the triadic interaction between “I-you-it”, also known as the pragmatic triad, where both interlocutors and the object that is dealt with in interaction acquire their important roles (pp.89-91). Linell then argues, that any triads, pragmatic or situational (now-here-I) are insufficient for a “dialogical explication of the communicative act” (p.93). This is when the idea of double dialogism is introduced, claiming that dialogues in fact consist of four elements, Ego (“I”)- Alter (“you”)-Socioculture (“we”/”one”) –Object (”it). Socioculture in this model can also be understood as the signs or social representations of the object (pp.94-97). The role of third parties in interaction is then further theorized in the final part of the chapter. Linell writes for instance about the important roles third parties play in communication in terms of trust and confidence, their active and non-active presence in the interaction (copresent others vs. remote audiences and virtual participants) and artifacts as third parties (pp.99-103).

Chapter 9 Social interaction and power
This chapter is primarily concerned with the dynamics of situated interaction, arguing that each contribution to interaction has links to prior and possible next actions – hence the word “inter-action”. Linell states that his theory deals with “inter-acts”, to be compared with monologist pragmatics’ “speech acts” (.p178, again critically examined in pp. 181-183). Another core concept is that of “communicative project”, a project that is jointly constructed, centered around a communicative task, and focuses on the other. Referring to many known names from CA theory (Schegloff, etc.), Linell agrees with conversation analysis’s focus on the local sequential construction of interaction (initiatives, responses, reciprocity), but points out that similar analyses apply also to longer time frames than just some situated interaction. Seeing communicative acts as interacts in a larger scale means thus that the larger wholes can be considered as communicative projects (p.181). Communicative acts, as Linell points out, are acts made for some purpose, whether asking for advice, asserting or accusing someone, and thus connected to a greater scale of events than the local organization of interaction (p.182).

Later on in the chapter, Linell further deepens the discussion on sequentiality of interaction, joint construction of meaning and act-activity interdependence. These three are sometimes called the three reflexive dialogical principles. Sequentiality refers to the chained nature of interaction and meaning-making, while act-activity interdependence equals a principle focusing on the part-whole relations in sense-making. Joint construction then deals with co-authorship. (Pp.186-187) In 9.7, the concept of “communicative project” (CP) is focused and analyzed. The basic idea behind this notion is that single utterances most often are parts of bigger projects – and that the communicative projects as such have holistic features that overbridge the parts they consist of (pp.188-189). Communicative projects thus refer to dynamic “tasks carried out by participants in and through their interaction” (p.190) but are also embedded within other, successively larger non-communicative projects (p.192). Most importantly, CPs are always dialogical, an argumentation that is emphasized through the illustration of a number of empirical examples (pp. 193-196). In 9.8, Linell introduces a related concept, that of communicative genres. Relating this concept to Bakhtin’s “speech genre” (1986b), he concludes that it is more inclusive than Bakhtin’s original or “text genre” used in literary theory (pp.198-199).

Yet another related concept is the communicative activity type (CAT), defined as “comprehensive communicative project tied to a social situation type”. The interest towards CATs is guided by an interest towards larger patterns of actions and interactions, relating to social situations and encounters, framed by specific expectations and purposes. (pp.201-202) As an analytical concept, CATs belong to a meso-level, “providing a link between situated micro-processes and societal macro-structures” (p.203). The analysis of CATs can occur in many conceptual and empirical dimensions, which are divided into three different groups by Linell: framing dimensions (purposes and tasks, activity roles, scenes, times, role of language…), internal interactional organizations and accomplishments (phase structure, core CPs, agenda, topical progression methods, role of artifacts…) and sociocultural ecology (socioc. history, relations to larger societal organizations…) (pp.203-204). Together with CPs, CATs are basic analytical concepts within the dialogical analysis of social interaction, and, according to Linell, better suited for the analysis of interaction than theories of speech acts and adjacency pairs, because:

 * “CP theory focuses the analysis on discourse on “what’s going on” for the participants
 * it deals with structural provisions and topicality at the same time, as two sides of discourse
 * it accommodates the fact that there are communicative projects on different time scales
 * it naturally encompasses the theory of CATs as a natural part of the theory, also relating communication to non-communicative aspects of encounters” (pp.211-212, shortened).

The chapter then ends with a short “digression” to the issue of power in interaction, with asymmetries and the asymmetrical division of communicative labor as a point of departure. Linell points out that asymmetries, boundaries, domination and subversion and tensions are essential in social communication and that therefore, analysts need to discuss interaction from these perspectives (p.214).

Chapter 16 Dialogue and artifacts
This chapter deals with artifacts, and dialogue being different from many artifacts. Linell brings once again in the important role that certain artifacts play in assisting dialogue (technologies; mobiles, computers, radio, television…) and discusses the complex and varied ways that human beings use artifacts. Reading, for instance, is an example of an activity based on the usage of external artifacts, an example that underlines Linell’s argument for considering artifacts from their affordances point of view, meaning their meaning potentials (pp.345-346). The meaning, or potential meanings of artifacts are sometimes obvious but also not yet realized meanings for the users. It is not until they are used, appropriated, that they are assigned a local and situated meaning (p.347). Artifacts can also be considered as third parties (“others”) and boundary objects connecting contexts and situations – artifacts are not always what they seem to be designed for (p.348).

Chapter 20 Some misinterpretations of dialogism
The aim of this final chapter is to challenge a number of extremist interpretations of dialogism and try to clear out some misinterpretations concerning it. Linell discusses the criticisim and claims that dialogism is in fact “a nuanced, systematic and veridical framework that is sensitive to the facts of human sense-making” (p.425). Dialogism, as has been stated above, should be understood as a counter-theory to monologism and its individualistic and representational models of cognition and interaction. Linell relates dialogism to constructionism, but not to what he calls radical constructionism, but to contextual, social constructionism. He then connects dialogism with three features within contextual constructionism:

1.	The focus on both situation and tradition within both dialogism and contextual constructionism.

2.	The realization that language use occurs in the real world, in interaction with the physical and social environments – not in isolation.

3.	All communication, cognition and action are situated and part of different genres or communicative activity types (p.426)

Considering the above, Linell then discusses five false interpretations sometimes attributed to dialogism, these being extreme relativism, extreme situationalism, extreme social determinism, extreme collectivism and extreme intersubjectivism. Finally, he states that dialogism should not be interpreted in accordance to these fallacies/misunderstandings (pp.427-430).


text:
User:Gme/Per linell gme

Some issues for further discussion during the seminar (april 14, 2011) on Rethinking Language Mind and World dialogically (Linell, 2009)

 * 1) The divide between normative dialogue and the notion of dialogue as "any kind of semiotic practice, action, interaction, thinking or communication" (p. 5)
 * 2) Context and utterances: why that to me now?-aspect of communication (p. 181-3)
 * 3) Relationship between discourse or the focus events and context (p. 17) - Meaning potential and affordances. Who is makins sense of the context?
 * 4) Self and others: the quadrilateral diamond - Ego, Alter, Object and Socioculture (p. 95)

Giulia Messina Dahlberg 11:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User:Gme/Per linell gme


text:
User:Gkoech

Gillian Koech is a young, intelligent, well-mannered, charming and beautiful lady who loves being part of a dynamic organization that is versatile where I can contribute my knowledge, skills and also advance professionally. A consensus and team builder she is with the ability to help others while attending to detail thus being effective in high-pressure situations.

I’m Journalism and Media Studies graduate from The University of Nairobi who has vast experience in media work having worked with BBC World Service Trust for one year six months.

In the other realm I’m a tourist. I enjoy traveling and exploring new dwellings, diverse culture and traditions that we have in Kenya and Africa at large. I will continue to grow in my passion for writing, researching and enthusiasm for getting a job well done.

Yours Truly, Gkoech

title: User:Gkoech


text:
Instructional design/LMS interactivity/References

Introduction | Lesson 1 | Lesson 2| Practice| References


text:
User:Joer~enwikiversity

Stuff involved in

 * History of computing, Introduction to Computer Science, Introduction to Programming and Introduction to Programming in Java.

Lessons
Intro to Computer science
 * Lessons complete 2-3

Intro to Programming
 * To be started

Intro to Programming in Java
 * To be started

Papers
History of Computing
 * History of computation Paper
 * The conceptualization of numbers lead to the creation of mathematics, the founding base of computing. Beginning with the abacus, rudimentary systems were devised to preform and track simple calculations. As the tools and methods of calculating improved, eventually rudimentary computer-like components such as the Antikythera mechanism were created. These early devices were analogus to mechanical computers, proto-computers in some sense. Come renaissance era, the first simple calculators were derived. The renaissance era difference engine showed that mechanical calculators capable of addition, subtraction, division and multiplication were all possible. The discoveries and data gathered from the renaissance difference engine and other devices formed the basis of modern computing knowledge.
 * History of Computing Hardware Map
 * -Prior to the 20th century. The earliest known items used for calculation were prehistory bones, used as tally sticks. Examples include the Lebombo and Ishango bones. The Abacus is recorded by the earliest known writers, the Babylonians. The next was a gear based device in China known as the South Pointing Chariot. It is also the first known use of a differential gear. Some 500 years after this, the Indians record the concept of zero. At the same time the Indian language complexified, effectively introducing a few important concepts in computers and mathematics like recursion and transformation. 200 years later, an Indian mathematician codified the Binary number system. A century afterwords, The Chinese developed their own abacus which become very popular. It is still used to this day and is the standard abacus known throughout America. The famous Greek Antikythera mechanism was invented shortly after this, becoming the first real analog computer. A couple decades after the Antikythera, the Chinese began to use negative numbers. In 60 AD a Greek engineer created the first automatons and  codifying sequence control, effectively creating the first program. In 200 AD Indian mathematicians invented logarithms. 400 years later Indian mathematicians defined place-value, a critical part of number conceptualization. A Chinese inventor developed the first mechanical clocks in 724, creating the technology that modern computers would base their time systems on. Algebra was conceived by an Arabian mathematician in 820. Thirty years later another Arabian mathematician codified cryptography. At the same time a pair of Persian brothers invented the automatic flute player, the first programmable machine ever.
 * -Fifties
 * -Sixties, and so on
 * Ada Lovelace Paper

What is an Algorithm
Cooking/Frying an egg, sunny-side up
 * 1. Get egg
 * a. Have egg?
 * 1)If yes then place on counter
 * 2)If no then check fridge
 * a)Egg in fridge?
 * I If yes then place on counter
 * II If no then terminate
 * 2. Get pan
 * a. Have pan?
 * 1)If yes then place on stove
 * 2)If no then check shelf
 * a) Pan in shelf?
 * I If yes then place on stove
 * II If no then terminate
 * 3. Get butter
 * a. Have butter?
 * 1)If yes then place in pan
 * 2)If no then get from fridge
 * a)Butter in fridge?
 * I If yes then place in pan
 * II If no then terminate
 * 6. Heat butter
 * a. Stove on?
 * 1)If yes then wait for butter to melt.
 * 2)If no then turn on stove
 * a)Is Butter melted?
 * I If yes then step done
 * II If no then wait for butter to melt.
 * 7. Crack egg into stove.
 * a.Have egg?
 * 1)If yes then approach pan
 * 2)If no then get from counter then approach pan.
 * b.Crack egg into pan then throw away shell.
 * 8. Cook till done.
 * a.Check color every 10 seconds
 * 1)Is egg Yellow?
 * a)If yes then done.
 * b)If no then additional cycle.

The activities you do and the vehicles you ride on your way to school
 * 1.Wakeup
 * a)Exit bed then go to closet
 * 2.Get Dressed
 * a.Is closet open?
 * 1)If yes then get clothes
 * 2)If no then open closet then get clothes then dress
 * 3.Get breakfast
 * a.In kitchen?
 * 1) If yes then make morning meal then eat
 * 4.Brush teeth
 * 5.Pack backpack
 * 6.Drive to school

Walking your dog at the park

Evaluate (x^4 + 25y^2 + 2z) − 13
 * 1.Preform operations from left to right
 * a.Begin with operations in parentheses.
 * 1)Preform multiplication and division
 * a)Calculate powers before other multiplication or division.
 * I)Preform remaining multiplication and division.
 * 2)Do addition and subtraction

title: User:Joer~enwikiversity


text:
Wikiversity:Governance

This page will document the actual governing structure of Wikiversity, and proposed governing structures. Please discuss on Wikiversity talk:Governance.

(There is no formal governing structure as this is written; there are ad-hoc procedures, followed erratically, but, as with most activity on Wikimedia Foundation wikis, nearly all decisions are made by individuals with the editing rights they possess, and there is no set, reliable dispute resolution process. Exceptions do exist, such as the Arbitration Committee on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee is appointed by Jimbo Wales, or by the authority of the WMF, formally, but following, in his judgment, the advice of the community as expressed in periodic AC elections. Overall governance of the WMF family of wikis exists in theory through the WMF board, which is self-elected, pursuant to its own bylaws (which it sets unilaterally), and which also generally follows community elections, which have been held using various election methods.)

title: Wikiversity:Governance


text:
Instructional design/LMS interactivity/Practice

Introduction | Lesson 1 | Lesson 2| Practice| References

Practice
The link below is a introductory video of PowerPoint 2010 and is geared towards first time users of the software, highlighting the differences between this version and older versions of the software. This course exhibits limited interactivity from the learner. As you watch the video, ask yourself "What do you see that could be changed to make the tutorial more interactive?" After you have view the video, add your ideas to the table at the bottom of the page by clicking on the "edit" option.

Getting Started with PowerPoint 2010

To view the video in a different window or tab, right click on the link and make the appropriate selection.

Your ideas
Below is a table that can be added to for your ideas about how to make the course above more interactive. We have added two examples already but we need your help in finding more ways. To add to the list select the edit button and fill in the information in the table.

Thank you for participating in learning about adding interaction to online courses!!!

Introduction | Lesson 1 | Lesson 2| Practice| References


text:
Wikiversity talk:Governance

A proposed governing structure for Wikiversity
1. No technical change, however:

2. Rules are established for membership in a Wikiversity Council. The intention is for the entire community of interest in Wikiversity to be represented on the Council; however, members of the council will be self-defined as Active or Inactive. Active members will have the right to be notified of any Council business, according to Council rules. Membership is by registration as members. Active status may be subject to periodic confirmation.

3. The Council will be an advisory body, designed to study issues and develop, collect, and express community consensus -- or the lack of the same, on any issue of sufficient interest to warrant Council deliberation, according to Council rules.

4. The Council will develop its own rules, as is normal for any committee, and may designate committees to study particular issues, for report back to the Council.

5. The difference between the Council and existing on-wiki processes, such as Community Review, is that the Council may create, as needed, committees and its own processes, subject to its own approved rules of procedure and rules for participation. It may elect Council officers, to facilitate efficient and fair discussion.

6. The Council is designed to facilitate consensus, but may make any decision about its own process by majority rule, following its own procedures. Some aspects of Council function might take place off-wiki; however, Council deliberation, as such, should be open and a matter of public record, whether on or off-wiki.

7. It is possible for there to be more than one Council, under some circumstances. "Competing Councils" will then represent factions, and their existence makes possible factional negotiations. However, more likely, there will be only one "top-level" coordinating body, which serves to present full reports to the full community (i.e., all those interested in Wikiversity). What this boils down to is that it is possible that there be more than one advisory body, but there is pressure, for reasons of efficiency, for people to cooperate in the maintenance of one such structure.

8. A structure will be set up for registered Wikiversity editors to express confidence in individual members of the Council, one of the file structures set up for w:WP:PRX may be used, say [w:User:Abd/ProxyTest], see a Proxy Table at w:Wikipedia_talk:Delegable_proxy/Table, creating a "standing election" of what could serve as an Executive Committee for the Council, using Asset Voting (the Wikipedia article on Asset Voting was deleted, but there is a redirect, so see Asset voting, and in history, there is reference to the Lewis Carroll invention, or in deletion discussion for Asset voting. Carroll did invent the basic concept of Asset Voting in the 1880s, and it was elaborated by Mike Ossipoff in the 1990s and Warren Smith in about 2002. Asset Voting can be used to *quickly* elect an assembly that fully represents (substantially, even to true total representation, given TANSTAAFL) an electorate, something which is not possible with any other election method.

9. This structure can be used to estimate the degree to which a Council vote on an issue represents the consent of the community as a whole, or the extent to which the community as a whole has been represented in Council deliberations.

I notice that there was some discussion with Jimbo Wales of some of these concepts, in a discussion initiated by our own WAS 4.250:. --Abd 18:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity talk:Governance


text: File:Continium.gif

title: File:Continium.gif


text: File:Continium SM.jpg

title: File:Continium SM.jpg


text: File:Continium med.jpg

title: File:Continium med.jpg


text:
Template:Navigate20c

 http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search

title: Template:Navigate20c


text:
Literature/1984

This year is famous for.

title: Literature/1984


title: Category:1984


text:
Grounded theory

The method was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). As many other frameworks it can mean different things for different people. It is important to define what it means for you.

Grounded theory aims to develop theory which is grounded or rooted in reality. In Glaser and Strauss (1967) words, grounded theory aims to develop explanatory theory of basic social processes studied in the environments in which they take place. It is not a testing theory approach, and it does not aim to provide descriptive accounts (Denscombe, 2010), but goes beyond this, to provide an explanation of the phenomena researched.

Grounded theory typically involves questions that seek to understand what’s going on here? It is about learning from participants how to understand a situation. Grounded theory is often used in health and business, where change and processes are important (Richards and Morse, 2007).

Researcher’ s position
The researcher is supposed to work without any preconceptions, to not be influenced by previous theories, ideas, existing literature. Any existing knowledge needs to be put on hold. The researcher is expected to construct a theory emerging from the data, not from what he already knows.

Data collection
Empirical fieldwork is important as theories are not developed abstractly. Multiple methods can be used, but preference is for methods that provide relatively unstructured data or raw data such as unstructured interviews, open ended questions…...

Analysis and Results
Grounded theory involves extracting concepts from data, while testing them, testing their relationships to continuously verify emerging theory. The analysis involves finding basic elements of complex things through categorising, comparing. This implies an ongoing interplay between data collection, analysis and writing.

Since grounded theory develops theory, results generally concentrate on a single concept.

Resources
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago:Aldeline.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, Calif. : Sage Publications.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks : Sage.

Charmaz (2000). ‘Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods’ in Denzin and Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research pp. 105-117.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage, 2006.

title: Grounded theory


text:
Template:Navicategory20c

This category will list all the relevant subpages.

title: Template:Navicategory20c


title: Literature/1975


title: Category:1975


title: Literature/1938


title: Category:1938


title: Literature/1948


title: Category:1948


title: Category:1957


title: Literature/1957


title: Literature/1967


title: Category:1967


title: Literature/1993


title: Category:1993


title: Literature/1966


title: Category:1966


title: Literature/1939


title: Category:1939


title: Literature/1900


title: Category:1900


title: Literature/1914


title: Category:1914


title: Literature/1911


title: Category:1911


title: Literature/1922


title: Category:1922


title: Literature/2001


title: Category:2001


title: Literature/2002


title: Category:2002


title: Literature/1974


title: Category:1974


title: Literature/1905


title: Category:1905


title: Literature/1945


title: Category:1945


title: Literature/1949


title: Category:1949


title: Literature/1959


title: Category:1959


title: Literature/1950


title: Category:1950


title: Literature/1936


title: Category:1936


title: Literature/1987


title: Category:1987


title: Literature/1999


title: Category:1999


title: Literature/1980


title: Category:1980


title: Literature/1996


title: Category:1996


title: Literature/1990


title: Category:1990