My fourth Live Better article forthcoming

I have been notified that another article emerging from the LIve Better research consortium, featuring me as a co-author based on data collection in Norway, has been accepted for publication and is forthcoming in Emotion.  

Preliminary reference:

— forthcoming, Maciej Górski et al. Cultural Variability In The Link Between Affect And Meaning In Life: Evidence From 69 Countries. Emotion.

Listed as co-author of Live Better article submitted to PNAS

I have been listed as a co-author of the article "The Meaning-or-Affluence Paradox: Wealth Undermines Meaning, Spirituality and Conformity Preserve It", which has been submitted to PNAS. The co-authorship is based on my data gathering in Norway in the Live Better research consortium.

Listed as co-author of "Towards a Fulfilling Life" article

I have been listed as a co-author of the article manuscript "Towards a Fulfilling Life: The Role of Low Negative Societal Emotional Environments in Living the Happy and Meaningful Life", which is about to be submitted, based on my involvement in data gathering in the "Live better" research consortium.

New title for third Live Better article

I have previously mentioned that I am listed as a co-author of an article that was work-titled "Expression of Positive Emotions Links to Independent Selfhoods, Globally with Minor Exceptions Only: Findings from Two Macro-Psychological Studies". The article now has a new title: "Does Expressing Positive Emotions Reflect Independent or Interdependent Models of Selfhood? Searching for Latin American ‘Expressive Interdependence’ in Two Global Studies." The article has now been submitted to Psychological Science.

See also:

Third Live Better manuscript

Third Live Better manuscript

I am listed as a co-author of the journal article "Expression of Positive Emotions Links to Independent Selfhoods, Globally with Minor Exceptions Only: Findings from Two Macro-Psychological Studies" (Kuba Krys), which is about to be submitted to Psychological Science. I am involved due to my role concerning data gathering in Norway in the Live Better project.

Second Live better article soon to be submitted

A second article based on Live better data will soon be submitted. Preliminary reference:

— in review, 2024, with Brian W. Haas, Xiaobin Lou et al. Aspirational life satisfaction moderates the link between actual life satisfaction and negative emotional experience: A large scale cross-cultural study. Emotion. 

See also:

"Live better" project: Stavanger dataset delivered

First "Live better" article submitted; credited as co-author

"Live better" project: Stavanger dataset delivered

Today I have delivered the Stavanger dataset for the Norwegian part of the international quantitative survey "Live better: The culturally sensitive study into "folk theories of societal development" and into "ideal types of well-being"", with 190 responses included. This is part of a research consortium involving some 50 countries and headed by Kuba Krys.

YFF evaluation

I have just completed an evaluation survey for my use of an YFF grant (Yngre Fremragende Forskere = Outstanding Young Researchers) from University of Stavanger. Excerpts of my response is available below.

When and how long was the stay abroad?

Several trips, ranging from 2 days to 2 weeks each

What did you do?

Attended the OECD Social Policy Forum in Montreal, attended First WID.world conference (with launch of first World Inequality Report) in Paris, attended and presented at conferences in Mexico City and Berkeley, California, co-organised and presented at research seminar in Havana, field trip to the Amazonas

Who did you visist

Paris School of Economics; Mamirauá Sustainable Development Reserve (Amazonas); OECD Social Policy Forum (Montreal); Universidad de la Habana (Havana); Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Mexico City)

Did the visit lead to any collaboration projects?

The visits have resulted in material for scientific articles as well as useful contacts for an ERC-application and NFR-application (two applications submitted). The Havana visit, with further UIS colleagues, contributed to a successful NORPART grant Stavanger-Havana (5 mill. NOK awarded).

How did the travel impact your research?

Useful info and contacts; new research path prepared

Employee survey

I have just participated in University of Stavanger´s biannual employee survey. I rate my overall job satisfaction as 4/5, though with some critical remarks.

Fourth biosemiotic glossary article on "semiotic threshold" - survey now online

The forth survey in the biosemiotic glossary project has just been released online, via Google Forms/Google Docs - here. The key term for the fourth survey is "semiotic threshold". The fourth review article in the project is being written and researched by Kalevi Kull and Claudio J. Rodríguez H.

Third Biosemiotic Glossary Project survey: "Intentionality"

The third survey in the Biosemiotic Glossary Project is now open. Don Favareau is the assigned author of the third review article, to be published in Biosemiotics, and the term surveyed is "intentionality".

Responses are given online, in two parts, here and here - by early July.

Fourth round of Delphi study on play

Yesterday I responded to the fourth and final part of the Delphi study on play I have been involved with as an expert on the topic (see also previous posts).

Draft paper on scientists´ view on economic growth and the environment

Some time back I responded, upon invitation, to an interesting survey on attitude to economic growth. I have now received a draft paper by Stefan Drews og Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, entitled "Scientists’ views on economic growth and the environment: The role of research fields, expertise, and ideology", which sums up the survey findings.

"The biosemiotic glossary project: Agent, agency" accepted for publication

My review article "The biosemiotic glossary project: Agent, agency" has some days ago been accepted for publication in Biosemiotics. It will appear in print in Biosemiotics 8(1), due in April.

2nd biosemiotic survey - 'Umwelt' (deadline August 20th)

The questionnaire for the second survey in the biosemiotic community conducted by the journal Biosemiotics as part of the biosemiotic glossary project has just been presented. See the blog post 2nd survey conducted by Biosemiotics - 'Umwelt' (the biosemiotic glossary project) in the Biosemiosis blog. The questionnarie is also to be found on my Academia.edu profile page - see here. Deadline for participation in the survey is August 20th.

See also:

Second biosemiotic glossary review article to review 'Umwelt' notion

First biosemiotic glossary review article finished; revised; sent for feedback; abstract

On May 8th I finished the review article "The biosemiotic glossary project: Agent, agency", which is the first article in the biosemiotic glossary project of the journal Biosemiotics. Following feedback from my fellow editors Alexei Sharov and Timo Maran I then revised it by June 2nd. Yesterday the article draft was distributed to members of the editorial and advisory board of Biosemiotics and to those cited (biosemioticians) for feedback. In its current version the article comes with a 6-page Appendix (Electronic Supplementary Material).

The article will appear in Biosemiotics issue 3 2014 (December).

Abstract The current article is the first in a series of review articles addressing biosemiotic terminology, and is meant to establish the format of the series. In contrast to the five existing biosemiotic glossaries compiled by individual authors (one or a few), this project is inclusive and designed to integrate views of a representative group of members within the biosemiotic community based on a standard survey and related publications. The methodology section describes the format of the survey conducted in November–December 2013 in preparation of the current review and targeted on the two terms ‘agent’ and ‘agency’. Next, I summarize denotation, synonyms and antonyms, with special emphasis on the denotation of these terms in current biosemiotic usage. On this point the survey findings include ratings of nine citations defining or making use of the two terms. I provide a summary of respondents’ own definitions of the terms and suggested usage. Further sections address etymology, connotations, and related terms in English and other languages. A section on the notions’ mainstream meaning vs. their meaning in biosemiotics is then followed by attempt at synthesis and conclusions.

While some other fields, such as medical and veterinary science, has a pragmatic interest in the notion of agency qua causal, biosemiotics has an ontological interest in the occurrence of agency in the living realm at large. Although there is currently no consensus in the biosemiotic community on what constitutes a semiotic agent, i.e. an agent in the context of semiosis (the action of signs), most respondents agree that core attributes of an agent include goal-directedness, self-governed activity, processing of semiosis and choice of action, with these features being vital for the functioning of the living system in question. I agree that these four features are constitutive of biosemiotic agents, and further suggest to define ‘semiotic agency’ as the capacity a living system has of affecting the course of events in which it is involved by relating to sign relationships. Finally, I stipulate that biosemiotic agents fall within three major categories, namely 1) sub-organismic biosemiotic agents, 2) organismic biosemiotic agents and 3) super-organismic biosemiotic agents.

See also:

The biosemiotic glossary project announced and started - first terms to be reviewed 'agent', 'agency'

Potential terms for review - the biosemiotic glossary project

In the context of the ongoing survey in the biosemiotic community partaking in the biosemiotic glossary project (see below), I thought I could share the terms we in the editorial team have listed as potential terms for review. In alphabetical order, these are:

causation + semiotic causation + downward causation

code

cognition

communication

evolution

function

information

interpretation

intentionality + goal

learning

life

mind + perception

organism

niche + semiotic niche

ritualization

semiotic emergence

semiotic freedom

semiotic threshold

sign + semiosis + biosemiosis

signal

species + species-specific

subject + subjectivity

Umwelt (+ Innenwelt?)

As part of the survey, which is conducted until December 15th 2013, respondents are invited to suggest terms to review.

See also:
The biosemiotic glossary project announced and started - first terms to be reviewed 'agent', 'agency

The biosemiotic glossary project announced and started - first terms to be reviewed 'agent', 'agency'

Yesterday I posted "Questionnaire from Biosemiotics - and info about the biosemiotic glossary project" in the Biosemiosis blog. The text, which I also distributed on an email list and by email, reads like this:

Dear all,

on behalf of the journal Biosemiotics, I refer you to a questionnaire which we now distribute in the biosemiotic community in preparation of the biosemiotic glossary project. The editorial team of Biosemiotics, which counts Alexei Sharov, Timo Maran and myself (note that in parallel Marcello is finishing the final issues he is responsible for the next few months), has decided to go through with this project, and that I will be its handling editor.

The genre for the resulting publications will be invited review articles. The first, standard-setting review article, on the notions ‘agent’ and ‘agency’, will be written by me personally. One review will be published in each regular issue of Biosemiotics – in other words, usually there will be two review articles per year. The first article will appear in no. 3/2014. Each article will review one or more terms.

While I am the handling editor for these review articles, all three of us will be involved in decision making. We will routinely discuss and decide on what term(s) to review next, what author(s) to invite to write each review, etc. As part of the editorial process, each review article will, when submitted, be distributed to the members of the editorial board of Biosemiotics and further to those cited in the article, for feedback. This will be part of the basis for our editorial decision concerning whether the review is ready to be published or needs revisions.

A survey in the biosemiotic community will be conducted in preparation of each review article. The associated questionnaire, which is to be returned to me as handling editor, will be distributed to a wide range of biosemioticians, including but not necessarily restricted to/via the members of the editorial board and advisory board of Biosemiotics, the biosemiotics email list (biosemiotics@lists.ut.ee), the board members of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), the board members of the International Society of Code Biology (ISCB), and the Biosemiosis blog (http://biosemiosis.blogspot.com/).

The invited author(s) will in each case be tasked with describing the outcomes of the survey associated with their review article, and to do so systematically and in an unbiased manner. However, when it comes to synthesis and suggestions, they will have the freedom to propose their own view even if it contradicts the general/popular understanding. In the writing process, all assigned authors are expected to conduct an extensive literature review on their own as well.

All respondents to the first survey in the biosemiotic community are, as part of the survey, invited to propose specific terms to review. Suitable terms should be quite concisely used by several biosemioticians, and if the terms are in more general usage as well, the biosemiotic usage of the terms should somehow stand out from general usage.

The deadline for returning the attached questionnaire is December 15^th. It should be sent to my email address (mortentoennessen AT gmail.com or alternatively morten.tonnessen AT uis.no).

My best,

Morten Tønnessen

Co-Editor-in-Chief of Biosemiotics

PS: The questionnaire is available via my Academia.edu page, here.