- > Foods that you can easily mash between your lips can be given to babies and should be about the size of a pea, or approximately 1â4 inch.
All Highlights
-
- > Of course, what she was attempting to control was a stake in her own intellectual property. Around the age of forty, as her schools continued to proliferate and demand for her training grew, Montessori resigned from her position at the University of Rome, hoping to focus entirely on her burgeoning educational movement. âFrom now on,â Kramer wrote, âshe would support herself and her dependents on the proceeds of her training courses and the royalties from her books and didactic materials, a situation which lent her activities a certain commercial aspect they would not have had if she had remained a salaried academic propounding her ideas in an academic framework.â Financial incentives, in other words, made it more likely that Montessoriâs projectâa mating of altruism and scientific inquiry, born in asylums and slumsâwould become transactional and exclusive.
-
- > The first definition of wisdom, i.e., wisdom as something that you can gain and then hold onto or possess, describes the academic perspective. We talk about basic research as that which adds to the body of knowledge. The second set of definitions, i.e., wisdom as something that you both possess and use, describes the practitioner perspective.
-
- > DTPs evolve through time. I wouldnât expect a first year doctoral student to know exactly what they want to answer. But I still ask them to write a DTP.
Page 2 - > I would characterize four types of DTP: 1. A pre-comprehensive examsâ DTP. In this case, the student is still doing coursework and hasnât written his/her doctoral exams. At this point, I would expect DTPs to be still draft forms of research questions, methods and expected outcomes. 2. A post-comprehensive examsâ, pre-proposal defense DTP. At this stage, I would expect the student to know his/her/their field well enough that he would have a very clear outline of what he/she/they plan to do and within what time frame. I would expect that my students would use their DTP to formulate their proposal. 3. A post-proposal defense, fieldwork-focused DTP. At this stage, I would expect that the trainee would be incorporating results from what he/she/they have found in their research. Itâs likely that by this point, one or more of their papers would be submitted to a journal. 4. A pre-doctoral defense DTP. At this stage, I would expect the student to have dominated every single element of his doctoral research, and therefore his/her/their DTP would be an extended version of their thesisâ abstract.
Page 3 - > If you liked this blog post, you may also be interested in my Resources for Graduate Students page, and on my reading notes of books Iâve read on how to do a doctoral degree.
-
- > We have to learn the bitter lesson that building in how we think we think does not work in the long run.
Page 2 - > we should stop trying to find simple ways to think about the contents of minds, such as simple ways to think about space, objects, multiple agents, or symmetries. All these are part of the arbitrary, intrinsically-complex, outside world. They are not what should be built in, as their complexity is endless; instead we should build in only the meta-methods that can find and capture this arbitrary complexity.
This reminds me of Intuitionism.
Page 2 - > We want AI agents that can discover like we can, not which contain what we have discovered.
-
- > It would be faster if they showed me multiple thumbnails on the screen, for me to just scan through a bunch and #ip through them; theyâre intentionally slowing me down, and showing me one thing at a time. But in doing so they get much cleaner feedback about my sentiment â and that means that the training of the algorithm happens more quickly.
-
- > Where we do see stress and negative emotions loading together on the aversiveness component is in the inception stage. The role of stress as a part of task aversiveness in the Inception stage may be best understood by considering Silver (1974) (cited in Aitken, 1982) who argues that stress disrupts goal achievement by causing an individual to procrastinate by delaying the initiation of the necessary goal.
Page 13 - > problems with procrastination may arise when individuals perceive their projects as being aversive in that these projects are boring, frustrating, done resentfully, forced upon them by others and are generally more stressful, less meaningful and less structured.
-
- > In summary then, we can begin by outlining some pointers to when to do a systematic review: 1. When there is uncertainty, for example about the effectiveness of a policy or a service, and where there has been some previous research on the issue. 2. In the early stages of development of a policy, when evidence of the likely effects of an intervention is required. 3. When it is known that there is a wide range of research on a subject but where key questions remain unanswered â such as questions about treatment, prevention, diagnosis, or etiology, or questions about peopleâs experiences. 4. When a general overall picture of the evidence in a topic area is needed to direct future research efforts. 5. When an accurate picture of past research, and past methodological research is required to promote the development of new method- ologies.
-
- > To analyze our sample of 67 papers, we applied a coding scheme we derived in the first review we conducted in 2014. This previous analysis had suggested that (1) some of the design principles focused attention on usersâ use of artifacts; (2) some talked mainly about the artifacts and little about the users; and (3) the remainder attended to both (i.e., focused on both artifact and action). We used this simple coding scheme as the basis for our analysis. iâm not sure what this actually achieved. Surely there were other dimensions along which different design theory papers differentiated? why are the only three possibilities and â the only three possible interesting pieces of data to come from each of these papers â whether they are about artifact rules, user rules, or both?
-
- > the design of IT artifact involves interpreting and converting design principles of the theory into artifact features.
Page 19 - > We term the features designed specifically to instantiate design principles of a design theory focal features.
Page 19 - > Cases 1 and 2 show that instantiating abstract design principles requires making implementation decisions that cannot be determined from the principles alone. Additional knowledge must be brought to bear by a practitioner to complete the project. In the Appendix, we provide a detailed analysis to show that in real-world development following a design theory, design of focal features involves a series of transformations of the design principles, in which each iteration brings additional knowledge (from outside the design theory). The mapping between design principles and focal features is not 1:1 as there can be many ways to instantiate a principle (e.g., collecting information âin terms of attributesâ in Case 1), each leading to different outcomes â a concept known as multifinality (Kruglanski et al., 2013; Prat et al., 2015).
Design prescriptions have multifinality
Page 19 - > As there may be many ways of manifesting an abstract principle and no specific guidance on how to select the best design choices, the question arises whether and to what extent outcomes are contingent on specific focal features. In some cases, the eventual design might produce the predicted outcome, but in others it might not. Table 2 illustrates this for Case
Page 20 - > 2, showing that the same design principle was converted into focal features in multiple ways â all assumed to be consistent with the principle â resulting in different outcomes
This example also points to a âimplementers me make mistakesâ dimension of DTI. In this case I wouldnât count melting ice underneath a polar bear as âdirect feedbackâ, it is really more like a causal illustration of the effect of energy consumption.
Edit: the authors discuss this later
Page 20 - > Design principles may be orthogonal â meaning that the focal features derived from one principle do not interact with any focal features derived from another. Alternatively, design principles might be oblique â in this case design features derived from one design principle might interact with design features derived from a second one. This means the complexity of instantiating multiple principles, each of which may be operationalized in several ways via different focal features, can be very high and instantiation of one principle may interfere with another. Such interactions might either strengthen or weaken effects on outcomes of interest.
Page 21 - > Thus, a challenge is providing effective support and guidance for practitioners to instantiate design principles into appropriate focal features such that the predicted outcomes occur. Accordingly, we propose Dimension 1.1 (Focal features) of DTI as indeterminacy when designing focal features based on design principles of the design theory.
Page 21 - > The need to make IT artifacts work requires the practitioner to develop features that relate to requirements other than the design principles or other components of the design theory. We term these auxiliary features. These features are commonly needed to ensure good design (Baskerville, Kaul, & Storey, 2018), provide generally expected functionality, physical infrastructure, or comply with legal, cultural or ethical norms (assuming these are beyond the scope of a given theory).
Page 22 - > It is possible that, even when all focal features are instantiated properly, the presence of auxiliary features may mitigate or even reverse the âdesiredâ effects stipulated by the design theory. Lukyanenko et al. (2015, 2014) view this as a threat to instantiation validity â ensuring that an artifact designed to instantiate a theory (e.g., for the purpose of behavioral theory testing or development of an IT artifact based on a design theory) not only faithfully operationalizes the focal theory, but is also free of confounds due to the presence of additional features necessary to make the artifact work.
Page 22 - > As discussed before, an IT artifact is a complex and open system. This implies it may not be reducible to the sum of its focal and auxiliary features. Instead, it may have emergent features â elements of form and behavior that emerge from the complex interaction between its focal and auxiliary features (Prat, Comyn-Wattiau, & Akoka, 2014). Following Prat et al. (2014), we argue DSR research needs to consider both individual IT features and an IT artifact as a whole.
Page 23 - > we propose Dimension 1.3 (Emergent features) of DTI as indeterminacy in ensuring any emergent features of the artifact accord with the design theory and do not prevent the attainment of the target outcome(s).
Page 24 - > design theories typically do not specify the full causal chains linking the artifact to the outcomes. They routinely omit potentially pertinent moderator and mediator constructs and their interrelationships (e.g., when a mediator is moderated by another variable, see Tams, Legoux, & Leger, 2018). A moderating construct is a construct that influences the direction or magnitude of the relationship between the antecedent and outcome constructs.
Page 25 - > antecedent and outcome constructs A mediating construct, on the other hand, is one assumed to stand between the
Page 25 - > In sum, to increase the likelihood of a desired outcome following the instantiation of a design theory into an artifact, the causal chains connecting the artifact to the outcomes in the deployment setting need to be well-understood and managed. Lack of guidance on how to do this creates ambiguity and uncertainty in practice.
Page 25 - > we propose Dimension 2.1 (Causality) of DTI as indeterminacy when deploying the artifact in the specific real-world context to ensure that the target outcomes are attained.
Page 26 - > DSR lacks the practice of sharing measurement instruments and making them publicly available for practitioners. As a result, a practitioner might reach incorrect conclusions following the deployment of the artifact design based on the design theory.
Page 26 - > we define Dimension 2.2 (Measurement) of DTI as indeterminacy in ensuring that the outcomes attained are properly measured and valid conclusions are reached.
Page 26 - > in an artifact, specification of causality, and measurement. it involves uncertainties related to additional features of the artifact, the interaction of features that we do not conceptualize DTI as merely a challenge of translating design principles. Rather, DTI is a multidimensional problem. These dimensions (summarized in Table 3) show