Here you find my scholarly papers. Most are interim products of my PhD research with Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barabara, CA
|
posted Jan 8, 2012 1:19 PM by Sergej van Middendorp
As part of a course on Love and Death in Modern Western Music Drama, we are watching six opera's and music drama's, and writing a reflection on each. This is my paper for Bach's St. Matthew's Passion.
|
posted Dec 21, 2011 8:12 AM by Sergej van Middendorp
[
updated Jan 2, 2012 7:07 AM
]
In november, I organized a researh update workshop for my supporters. The attached presentation was used to summarize the outcomes of the first Fielding PhD years, enjoy. |
posted Dec 21, 2011 8:08 AM by Sergej van Middendorp
This paper is a synthesis of my learning in Fielding Graduate University’s school of Human and Organization Development’s PhD course KA703: Systems, society, culture, community. It is the result of nine weeks of intensive reading, writing, and online dialogue with a band of colleague PhD students and with faculty professor David Willis in our school’s online forum Felix. The purpose of the paper is to summarize my learning, and to think about this learning in the light of my learning goals for this course in its entirety, which consists of this overview, an in-depth paper, and an applied. Also, it serves to point out its place in my overall PhD project plan.
|
posted Dec 21, 2011 7:47 AM by Sergej van Middendorp
A 10 page summary of my dissertation proposal and the underlying design as inputs for a winter session workshop on developmental action inquiry.
|
posted Dec 21, 2011 7:45 AM by Sergej van Middendorp
A paper for a KA (in which we will write six papers like these) with Jeremy Shapiro on Love and Death in Modern Western Music Drama. My paper explores the question if we could fuse opera and jazz by using Nietzsche as our inspiration.
|
posted Dec 21, 2011 7:42 AM by Sergej van Middendorp
Computers are arguably among the most powerful machines created by mankind. A specific field of computer technology, called Artificial Intelligence, explores how computers can take on increasingly complex human tasks. In one way of telling the story, the field of Artificial Intelligence started with Alan Turing’s question “Can machines think?” (Turing, 1950). Since then, computers have come a long way, raising important debates from both the yes and no sides of the answer to Turing’s question. However, the question also distracts attention from the relationship between humans and machines, who together may do a better job at conquering complexity than either one on them. This paper wonders if a more productive question might be to wonder how humans and computers will co-evolve over the coming years in order to meet the staggering challenges the broader world that we live in is presenting us with.
First, it focuses on the state of the art of the Turing test, a thought experiment that was designed to approach answers to Turing’s question. Then it takes the perspective of embodied realism, a scientific paradigm emerging from the findings of second generation cognitive science, and it uncovers some of the metaphors behind both sides of the Turing test debate. Then it introduces the idea of complexity and assumes that a synthesis of both sides of the argument makes more sense if we are to work pragmatically in today’s complex world. It proposes conceptual metaphor design as a method for engaging with complexity, and introduces the metaphor of organizational improvisation to synthesize the dilemma inherent in the Turing test, thereby transcending and including the dilemma of Artificial Intelligence in a collaborative human machine paradox. The paper finishes by exploring the case study of Pat Metheney’s orchestrion to infer metaphorical implications for man-machine interaction.
|
posted Dec 21, 2011 7:38 AM by Sergej van Middendorp
[
updated Dec 21, 2011 7:39 AM
]
This paper wraps up an overview section of a knowledge area in information systems, focused on new media. Dottie
challenged each of us to write a five page reflective paper, considering our overview
readings, and providing her with our own critical views on them. In addition,
she asked us to share a brief outline of our plans for the in-depth and the
applied parts of the KA.
|
posted May 14, 2011 12:18 PM by Sergej van Middendorp
[
updated May 14, 2011 12:19 PM
]
This is the second version of my concept paper. This got approved, as an addition to the first concept paper.
|
posted May 14, 2011 12:15 PM by Sergej van Middendorp
[
updated May 14, 2011 12:18 PM
]
This is the draft concept paper that I handed in to my committee in November 2010 to be discussed at the first committee meeting in Santa Barbara in January 2011.
They asked me to revise good bits of it in order to get it accepted. See the second concept paper for a summary of desired changes.
|
posted May 4, 2011 6:50 AM by Sergej van Middendorp
[
updated May 4, 2011 6:52 AM
]
This January, at Fielding Graduate University’s winter session, Jerry
Snow facilitated the integral leadership panel. In this session, a
group of doctoral students and alumni gathered around Russ Volckmann,
Clint Fuhs, Aliki Nicolaides, Nancy Wallis, and Anne Acosta to listen to
and discuss their integral leadership research and practice. I authored some notes from the field for the Integral Leadership Review journal to share our session with the wider community. They were published in the March 2011 issue.
 The Panel The
session started with participants thinking about their current,
pressing questions with regard to integral leadership by answering what
they would like to read about in an academic journal. These questions
then provided a structure for the introductions, which were then posted
to relevant quadrants on an integral AQAL map on the meeting room’s
wall. After that, the panel introduced themselves by sharing what
integral leadership means for them, what initiatives they are currently
pursuing, what specific aspects of integral leadership interest them
right now, and how they see integral leadership developing in the
future. After the introductions, Jerry facilitated an interactive
discussion between the panel and the participants that connected some of
these questions to insights emerging from the panel’s ideas. Russ
Volckmann, who attended the meeting virtually, rounded up the session by
reflecting on the topics and questions that struck a chord with him. See the attachment for the full article.
|
|
