[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Sun Oct 12 21:51:45 PDT 2014
Martin, I think it is nothing more than the limitations of a metaphor -
it can only illustrate one aspect of the target. In this case it is
simply saying that a quantity of water is just thousands H2O molecules,
and nothing else. No addition is required to manifest all the properties
of water.
You would have to be a chemist to know the forces that bind the H and OH
together and how they can be separated, H containing a positive charge
and OH containing a negative charge - a good old positive/negative
contradiction. All chemicals with the H ion are acids and all chemicals
with the OH ion are alkali, but water is both acid and base and
therefore neither. *If you want* the water molecule is a tangle of
contradictions and transformations, along with Carbon, the foundation of
the chemistry of life. :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
Martin John Packer wrote:
> Good question, Mike! What you're pointing out is that LSV's own example doesn't quite do justice to his analysis in T&L. Water is not a dynamic system: once hydrogen bonds with oxygen the process stops: water is a stable molecule. He should have picked an example in which an internal tension or clash of some kind provides a continual motor for change.
>
> In somewhat the same way, I'm trying to figure out how a triangle is dynamic. It's one of the most stable geometric shapes. :)
>
> Martin
>
> On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:26 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> Martin. What is the contradiction between hydrogen and oxygen such that two
>> atoms of hydrogen combined with one atom of oxygen give rise to water with
>> its distinctive qualities? Knowing that should help people to rise to the
>> concrete for their own cases.
>> mike
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, if it works for you, Helena..! :)
>>>
>>> Clearly Yrjo does claim that the triangle represents a dynamic system with
>>> contradictions. I'm still reading the chapter that Mike linked to, and I
>>> already some questions. But I'll wait until I read it all before posting.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On the contrary.
>>>>
>>>> To me, that very affordance is one of the great things about activity
>>>>
>>> theory and the activity system as a unit of analysis. A very simple example
>>> is that if you change something in the norms/customs/laws/history corner of
>>> the triangle (like win a court case that gives you a stronger footing in
>>> bargaining), then your tools also change. Another: if by bringing new
>>> members into the community (the base of the triangle) out of which division
>>> of labor raises the subjects, you may find yourself with a leadership team
>>> that is not all white, or not all primarily English-speaking, which in turn
>>> will change what tools/resources you have and may, if you're lucky and
>>> quick, change your history.
>>>
>>>> Helena Worthen
>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Martin John Packer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And what's neat about this way of thinking is that it implies that,
>>>>>
>>> once one understands the relationships among the components, one can bring
>>> about changes in one component in the totality by acting on *another*
>>> component of the totality.
>>>
>>>>> The activity system triangle does not suggest to me this type of
>>>>>
>>> relationship among components. Instead, it seems to represent elements that
>>> are only accidentally brought together.
>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Martin John Packer <
>>>>>
>>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me the problem in many research projects is that the question
>>>>>>
>>> is not formulated in an appropriate way. LSV was exploring a method of
>>> analysis that seeks to understand the relationship among components in a
>>> complex totality. Not the causal influence of one factor on another, which
>>> is often how students frame their research interest. And this means that
>>> the unit of analysis has to represent, exemplify, this relationship.
>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> As someone who uses the concept of "unit of analysis" in a very
>>>>>>>
>>> down-to-earth, quick and dirty, applied way to shape collective responses
>>> to a crisis in a labor and employment relationships (like, when a rule
>>> changes creates difficulties for workers), I would agree with Andy:
>>>
>>>>>>>> The other thing is that discovering a unit of analysis is an
>>>>>>>>
>>> *insight*. It
>>>
>>>>>>>> is not something that can be achieved by following a template, it is
>>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>>> breakthrough in your research into some problem, the leap. It
>>>>>>>>
>>> usually comes
>>>
>>>>>>>> *after* you've collected all the data for your research using some
>>>>>>>>
>>> other
>>>
>>>>>>>> unit of analysis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First comes the story, the details, the experiences. The question
>>>>>>>
>>> lying behind the telling of the stories is, "What are we going to do?" The
>>> unit of analysis gets defined by the purpose we are trying to accomplish.
>>> Are we trying to get the employer to back off temporarily? Are we trying
>>> get the rule changed? Example: In a big hospital system in Chicago,
>>> clerical workers were no longer allowed to leave an "I'm going to be late
>>> to work today" or "I have to stay home with my sick kid today and will miss
>>> work" message on the answering machines of their supervisors. We're talking
>>> about a workforce with hundreds of employees, most of them middle aged
>>> minority women -- with grandchildren and extended families to be
>>> responsible for. Not being allowed to leave a message on a machine, but
>>> being required to actually speak to a supervisor in person who would then
>>> keep a record of the call, was a problem because supervisors were often
>>> away from their desks and the whole phone system was unreliable. Also, a
>>> lot of workers didn't have cell phones at the time this was happening
>>> (2004) and pay phones are few and far between, so if someone it out buying
>>> more asthma inhalers for a grandkid, making a phone call is not easy.
>>>
>>>>>>> So, exactly what is the purpose that we're trying to accomplish,
>>>>>>>
>>> here? To repeal the rule? To fix the phone system? To educate members of
>>> the union and other others about how to respond collectively to something
>>> that only affects some of them? To make a profound change in society so
>>> that middle-aged women are not the primary caretakers of an extended
>>> family? Pick one. Once you've picked one (hopefully, one that you can
>>> carry out) you can define the unit of analysis and then reviewing the whole
>>> Engestrom triangle and evaluating your strategy becomes, as Andy says, a
>>> matter of solving puzzles.
>>>
>>>>>>>> From the employer point of view, asking workers to actually speak to
>>>>>>>>
>>> a live supervisor makes a certain sense. That's why we talk about activity
>>> system(s), not just one activity system. But they are often in conflict
>>> with each other, which adds to the drama.
>>>
>>>>>>> Is the data in your study being gathered with some purpose in mind?
>>>>>>>
>>> Is the purpose the purpose of the children, the purpose of the class, or
>>> the purpose of the PhdD program? To me, what would be most interesting
>>> would be a comparison between the unit of analysis (purposes of children)
>>> and unit of analysis (purpose of classroom). I'll bet they're not identical.
>>>
>>>>>>> Helena
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Helena Worthen
>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Katerina Plakitsi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This problem of the ' unit of analysis' is my concern too. I
>>>>>>>>
>>> supervise
>>>
>>>>>>>> three PHD students on Science Education in a CHAT context. Two of
>>>>>>>>
>>> them on
>>>
>>>>>>>> early childhood science education and one on primary science. They
>>>>>>>>
>>> have
>>>
>>>>>>>> collected log files, children discourses consisted of
>>>>>>>> scientific justifications, accepted rules, and forms of division of
>>>>>>>>
>>> labor.
>>>
>>>>>>>> They have collected children narratives, and drawings. When they
>>>>>>>>
>>> decided to
>>>
>>>>>>>> analyze their data they follow different paths into CHAT context
>>>>>>>>
>>> mainly
>>>
>>>>>>>> modeling them using Engestrom's triangle. They still doubt about the
>>>>>>>>
>>> " unit
>>>
>>>>>>>> of analysis".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Στις Κυριακή, 12 Οκτωβρίου 2014, ο χρήστης Andy Blunden <
>>>>>>>>
>>> ablunden@mira.net>
>>>
>>>>>>>> έγραψε:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Katie, picking up on your concern about units of analysis, it was
>>>>>>>>>
>>> one of
>>>
>>>>>>>>> the points I mentioned in my "report" from ISCAR, that this concept
>>>>>>>>>
>>> was
>>>
>>>>>>>>> almost lost to us. A phrase I heard a lot, and which was new for
>>>>>>>>>
>>> me, was
>>>
>>>>>>>>> "unit to be analysed." If anyone knows the origin of this
>>>>>>>>>
>>> expression, I'd
>>>
>>>>>>>>> be interested in hearing. It seemed to me that what it referred to
>>>>>>>>>
>>> was a
>>>
>>>>>>>>> "closed system" for analysis, that is, abandoning CHAT methodology
>>>>>>>>>
>>> whilst
>>>
>>>>>>>>> keeping the word. If I am mistaken about this, please let me know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The other thing is that discovering a unit of analysis is an
>>>>>>>>>
>>> *insight*. It
>>>
>>>>>>>>> is not something that can be achieved by following a template, it
>>>>>>>>>
>>> is the
>>>
>>>>>>>>> breakthrough in your research into some problem, the leap. It
>>>>>>>>>
>>> usually comes
>>>
>>>>>>>>> *after* you've collected all the data for your research using some
>>>>>>>>>
>>> other
>>>
>>>>>>>>> unit of analysis. In Kuhn's terms, discovery of the unit is the new
>>>>>>>>> paradigm, after which it is just a matter of solving puzzles. So for
>>>>>>>>> graduate students to use the concept of unit in their research,
>>>>>>>>>
>>> often
>>>
>>>>>>>>> depends on the wisdom of teh direction they get from their
>>>>>>>>>
>>> supervisor. I
>>>
>>>>>>>>> don't know how many PhD students I've met who have got to this
>>>>>>>>>
>>> point in
>>>
>>>>>>>>> their thesis and discover that the data they have is not the data
>>>>>>>>>
>>> they now
>>>
>>>>>>>>> know they need.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Katherine Wester Neal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I like Holli's plan to commit some time to reading the two
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> articles. But,
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as usual, I don't know that I'll have much to contribute in posts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> I
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> usually get deep in thinking about the posts and don't follow that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> through
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to write something. The writing is much harder, and I am usually
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> just
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> trying to keep up with reading!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For me, the thread has been fascinating, probably because I'm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> interested
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in different units of analysis, what they might be used for, and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> how they
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> fit together with theory and conducting research. What are people
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> doing
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> with units of analysis and why? Or why aren't units of analysis
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> being used?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If anyone wants to write more in that direction, I'd be very
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> interested to
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> read, and I'll try to respond, although the questions might be as
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> basic as
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> these.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, Andy has basically been articulating my thoughts (in a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> much more
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> eloquent way than I would) about action as a unit of analysis. In
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Mike's
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> example about driving and thinking and writing, I'd add that the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> action is
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mediated. Together with sociocultural and historical factors that
>>>>>>>>>> influenced those actions (and which, as has been said here before,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> often difficult to get a look at), the actions create a picture of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> much
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> more than just Mike's behavior.
>>>>>>>>>> Katie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal
>>>>>>>>>> University of Georgia
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ............................................................
>>>>>>>> Katerina Plakitsi
>>>>>>>> Associate Professor of Science Education
>>>>>>>> School of Education
>>>>>>>> University of Ioannina
>>>>>>>> University Campus Dourouti 45110
>>>>>>>> Ioannina
>>>>>>>> Greece
>>>>>>>> tel. +302651005771
>>>>>>>> fax. +302651005842
>>>>>>>> mobile.phone +306972898463
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits
>>>>>>>> http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr
>>>>>>>> http://www.lib.uoi.gr/serp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list