let me put forward two comments:
– Yes I know the Costall paper you are mentioning. And I also see that Gibson own position in his writings towards the problem of social negotiation with regard to the affordance concept is, to say the least, ambivalent 🙂 Nevertheless, for me it was helpful to read the passage where he differentiated himself from Koffka to better understand his theoretical position – and I thought that might work for you too.. As I said – no intent in doing exegesis :-)And let me add: I am also critical of some perverted forms of cognitivism and certainly interested in newer approaches to philosphy of mind (Enactive Cognition / Socially Extended Mind)
– your methodological approach sounds interesting and there is some familiarity with mine / ours. That leads me to the conference presentation that me and a colleague are preparing (i mentioned that before). We are conducting narrative biographical open interviews with people on their experience with certain media artifacts during lifespan. We then analyse this material with “documentary method” (developed by Ralf Bohnsack, meta-theoretically related to Bourdieu, Polanyi, Schuetz and Mannheim, and aiming at reconstructing Tacit Knowledge) to find out how certain habitual orientations may be enacted through with and by media use. In this theoretical frame, the artifacts’ affordances would denote their respective “enactment potential” for a higher order habitual orientiation (e. g. identity work, bodily satisfaction, education, etc..). I am curious what you think of that approach..