[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Mon Oct 13 00:27:12 PDT 2014
Yes Rod, perezhivanie includes positive, life-affirming experiences as
well as negative challenges. Bring a Russian word, it carries heavy
connotations of suffering and survival, but perezhivanija can also be
those kind of breakthroughs and surprising victories which can also
contribute to the formation of a personality.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
> I'm glad I am not the only one who struggles with the emphasis on contradiction in perezhivanie. As I understand this it is more like a bond of tension - two distinct elements which, in the interaction/tension between them generate something else. I have asked on this forum before whether we have to understand perezhivanie ONLY in terms of crises (I think it is clear why LSV chose to focus on the role of crises inn development)? Is perezhivanie not appropriate, in other words, for analysing the ways in which a person's identity is shaped by POSITIVE as well as NEGATIVE interactions with the person's environment (specifically in interactions with other people)? Or am I just oversimplifying my understanding of crisis?
>
> Rod
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of mike cole [mcole@ucsd.edu]
> Sent: 13 October 2014 06:04
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?
>
> I wasn't pointing out, I was asking, Martin.
> I am having trouble seeing contradiction in perezhivanie as well. more like
> a mashup.
> mike
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> ________________________________
> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>
> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list