[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?

Mon Oct 13 12:53:58 PDT 2014

To return to Leontiev's article on the environment.
On page 19 Leontiev says Vygotsky uses the word *communication* with the
narrow meaning of *spiritual sense* or *spiritual relationships* to signify
the way we use words and language.
Leontiev suggests this is a limited meaning of communication which excludes
a BROADER meaning [BEYOND LANGUAGE USE] to *signify* the GENERAL FACT of
people's relationships which ENCOMPASS their material dealings.

Is this way of presenting the difference in *communication* the SAME
[equal] difference that *divides* materialism and idealism?
Leontiev goes on to say:
When Vygotsky views the person AS *the subject of communication* the child
INEVITABLY IS transformed through THIS SIGNIFICATION of *communication*
into an IDEAL PSYCHOLOGICAL subject AND the environment is transformed into
an IDEAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT.

Leontiev then goes on to say that Vygotsky's thinking IS moving along THESE
*ideal* lines of development and it is THIS conceptual starting point which
is transforming Vygotsky's theory into a *spiritual* theory.
For Vygotsky, *discovering* the ROLE of *communication* [contact with
people] AS A DRIVING FORCE of development Vygotsky INTRODUCES *the*
understanding [in Peirce's term an *interpretant*] of a *FINAL IDEAL FORM*
This ideal form IS an existing phenomena [form] in the environment from the
beginning when the new born infant is thrown into THIS world.
In the process of development the child acquires THIS *ideal form* [which
already exists in the environment in IDEAL form] BE-comes the *model* that
results at the end of development.
IDEAL in *this* sense IS A MODEL of what results at the end of development.
The beginning form EXISTS in relation [in unity??] with the *ideal form*
[with the model] which pre-exists the beginning form of the infant AND
TRULY INTERACTS WITH the infant's development.

Leontiev goes on to claim that this specific example is characteristic, for
Vygotsky, of ALL OTHER MEANING development.
MODELS *truly exist* in the world [which emerged historically in previous
social historical situations]

Leontiev then goes on to make a STRONG claim that these models actually
*determine* and *direct* the infant's first steps.
I wonder if a weaker claim that models *influence* the infants first step
is what Vygotsky *meant*
SO -the environment [and models] *appear* [or seem] TO BE the
*vehicle* [carrier[ of development of THESE forms/models and these forms
*determine* the development of shared *meaning*

Now from this criticism of pre-existing *models* Leontiev claims Vygotsky
IS LOCKED in a vicious circle.
However, if *models* as various multiple [interpretants - Peirce] ACTUALLY
EXIST THEN Vygotsky's theory is *true* in actual fact.

This leads into the *loose* thread of the place of the *imaginal* in the
*real* and I would point to Raymond William's book "Marxism and Literature"
to explore the imaginal within Marxian *cultural theory*.
Also on another thread a discussion of Umberto Eco's notion of *primary
indexicality* prior to subjects and objects but that leads beyond the focus
of Leontiev's revisioning Vygotsky

Larry

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Martin John Packer <
mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:

> Hi Alfredo,
>
> I don't really see a dilemma... and I think LSV is pretty clear:
>
> "How can one explain why exactly the same environmental conditions exert
> three different types of influence on these three different children? It
> can be explained because each of the children has a different attitude to
> the situation. Or, as we might put it, each of the children experienced the
> situation in a different way. .... So it appears that, depending on the
> fact that the same situation had been experienced by the three children in
> three different ways, the influence which this situation exerted on their
> development also turns out to be different."
>
> Martin
>
> On Oct 13, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Alfredo Gil Jornet <a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> > Julian, Martin,
> >
> > Perhaps a way out of the dilemma of whether we should be talking about
> the same mother/environment or about different mothers/environments is
> provided by Dewey's notion of *situation*, which always implies both
> organism and environment. We can then talk of different situations, yet the
> same environment.
> >
> > Alfredo
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> > Sent: 13 October 2014 19:59
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?
> >
> > Julian,
> >
> > I would prefer to say that they all have the same mother, but they
> relate to her and interact with her in specific ways, depending largely on
> their stage of development.  She presumably relates to each of them
> somewhat differently, but undoubtedly each of them witnesses how she treats
> the others.
> >
> > So I'm saying that the environment is the same - they all live in a
> house with a drunken mother - but the ways they live in that environment,
> and the ways they make sense of it, differ.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Julian Williams <
> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> Ok we are on the same page, if you agree the environment may not be the
> same for the three children... It is not just that they are developmentally
> at a different stage, but "mother" is actually a different environment for
> each of them.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On 13 Oct 2014, at 17:54, "Martin John Packer" <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Julian,
> >>>
> >>> I've been trying to suggest that the dialectic is in the child's
> relationship to the environment. Or, as you say, as an aspect of
> child-in-the-environment (with-others).  Generally I try to avoid dualistic
> terminology such as 'in the child' versus 'in the world' or 'subjective'
> versus 'objective' - I think I'm following LSV's lead here, though
> certainly he uses the term "internal" a lot.
> >>>
> >>> Generally in children's development the environment does indeed change
> as they grow - parents make new arrangements for them. But in the case
> study that LSV describes, we have three children of different ages all
> dealing at the same time with the same adult. In this sense the environment
> is fixed, in this particular case.
> >>>
> >>> And surely you're right to suggest that the children are contributing
> to the environment in which they live. One can only imagine how a drunken
> mother responds to her youngest son wetting the bed, for example.
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 13, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Julian Williams <
> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear Martin, and all
> >>>>
> >>>> I dont see the dialectic as 'internal' to the child, but as the
> child-in-the-environment.  But I think maybe there is a problem with the
> current drift in the discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem I see arising now is that we are beginning to take the
> environment here as something fixed or taken for granted, with the
> difference in the three Perezhivanie being totally about the
> subjects/childs different stages of development. I'm not sure this does
> justice to the dialectic Vygotsky had in mind (though I see it might appear
> so in the text). I think one has to consider the objective fact of the
> environment as something from which different strands may be apprehended,
> or if you like, or from which certain aspects can be 'refracted'.
> >>>>
> >>>> At the cost of perhaps causing confusion, I wonder if the notion of
> Zone of Proximal Development  can help here for those who use this idea ...
> A particular social plane (environment, classroom interaction etc) can
> offer a ZPD for some but be entirely useless to others, because of their
> different stages of development, yes, yes. But also, different learners at
> different stages can help create their own ZPDs within the same social
> space and even plane, (drawing from the same social interactions in
> different ways). So they may shape the very environment which provides for
> their own ZPD and hence development. I think this is a more adequate way to
> think of the dialectic, so the subject is not seen as passive in their own
> development.
> >>>>
> >>>> Julian
> >>>>
> >>>> (Maybe this passivity is what Mike had in mind when he expressed
> reservations about Vygotsky's use of the 'final ideal form' , eg of
> arithmetic, have I remembered this right? Anyway I DO have reservations
> about that notion in Vygotsky's chapter but maybe that's another story for
> later.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 13 Oct 2014, at 14:53, "Martin John Packer" <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Robyn,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it's important to recognize that the oldest child's
> understanding of the need to take care of his mother and siblings is not a
> drive or an impulse, it is, LSV tells us, a "duty" that follows from
> adopting a specific "role" in the family. Understanding the situation in
> terms of roles and duties is certainly socially mediated - after all, roles
> and duties are social, or societal, matters (ontological and deontological
> respectively, if we want to get technical). The oldest child - presumably
> attending school - is able to understand that he lives in a world of social
> institutions, one of which is his family.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In this chapter LSV does not explore or explain how each kind of
> perezhivanie transforms into the next, but in his lectures on child
> development you can find a more detailed account. But here, in what is
> effectively a cross-sectional comparison of children at different ages
> (albeit only one at each age), he certainly means to suggest that  earlier
> forms provide the basis for later forms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Martin
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 13, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Robyn Babaeff <robyn.babaeff@monash.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Much appreciated Martin - this is feeling more visual, and now I am
> >>>>>> wondering is it possible to interpret that the older child's emotive
> >>>>>> drive/action of care  for his mother and younger sibling in its
> moment is
> >>>>>> also connected a socially mediated aspect of cognition from
> somewhere/time
> >>>>>> in his earlier years of perezhivanie for the 'how to' in his
> choosing/drive
> >>>>>> for duty of care?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 13 October 2014 23:21, Martin John Packer <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Just thinking out loud here!!!!, but could the dialectic involving
> >>>>>>>> perezhivanie be an internal one between the affective-cognitive
> >>>>>>> connection?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It seems to me that when LSV contrasts the consequence of their
> mother's
> >>>>>>> drinking for the three children, he is precisely sketching the
> dynamic
> >>>>>>> development of perezhivanie.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the youngest child, cognition is not yet differentiated from
> emotion,
> >>>>>>> in fact emotion *is* the child's way of understanding and
> interpreting the
> >>>>>>> circumstances. Completely dependent on the mother for all needs,
> the child
> >>>>>>> is overcome by the enormity of what is happening. His reaction is
> one of
> >>>>>>> extreme emotion - terror - and somatization - he urinates
> involuntarily and
> >>>>>>> stammers. He loses control of his own body.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LSV writes that the youngest child is "simply overwhelmed by the
> horror of
> >>>>>>> what is happening to him. As a result, he develops attacks of
> terror,
> >>>>>>> enuresis and he develops a stammer, sometimes being unable to
> speak at all
> >>>>>>> as he loses his voice. In other words, the child’s reaction
> amounts to a
> >>>>>>> state of complete depression and helplessness in the face of this
> >>>>>>> situation."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The second child illustrates perezhivanie that is more developed.
> The
> >>>>>>> contradiction of the situation becomes an "inner" conflict - an
> alternation
> >>>>>>> between, and combination of, a positive and a negative emotion
> towards the
> >>>>>>> mother. Each of these attitudes is more organized than the
> breakdown seen
> >>>>>>> in the youngest child. Each attitude is still primarily emotional,
> but it
> >>>>>>> is an organized and focused emotion, not a somatic collapse. The
> child's
> >>>>>>> love and fear is each a coherent way of grasping the situation,
> directed
> >>>>>>> towards the mother who is understood first as good, and then as
> bad. It is,
> >>>>>>> however, the combination, the coexistence, of these two emotions
> that is so
> >>>>>>> difficult for the child. He is trapped in a dilemma of
> approach-avoidance.
> >>>>>>> The contradiction in the situation - again, dependence on the
> mother; her
> >>>>>>> failure to meet her children's needs - becomes a personal conflict
> for the
> >>>>>>> child, who cannot yet reconcile it. His cognition alternates
> between two
> >>>>>>> different and incompatible ways of interpreting his mother - she
> is a
> >>>>>>> mother; no, she is a witch. His cognition is more capable than
> that of his
> >>>>>>> younger brother, but it is still secondary to his emotion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LSV writes that "The second child is developing an extremely
> agonizing
> >>>>>>> condition, what is called a state of inner conflict, which is a
> condition
> >>>>>>> frequently found in certain cases when contrasting emotional
> attitudes
> >>>>>>> towards the mother make their appearance, examples of which we have
> >>>>>>> previously been able to observe among one of our children and
> which, you
> >>>>>>> may remember, we have called an ambivalent attitude. On the one
> hand, from
> >>>>>>> the child’s point of view, the mother is an object of painful
> attachment,
> >>>>>>> and on the other, she represents a source of all kinds of terrors
> and
> >>>>>>> terrible emotional experiences [perezhivanija] for the child. The
> German
> >>>>>>> authors call this kind of emotional complex which the child is
> experiencing
> >>>>>>> a Mutter-Hexekomplex, or ‘a mother-witch complex’, when love for
> the mother
> >>>>>>> and terror of the witch coexist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "The second child was brought to us with this kind of deeply
> pronounced
> >>>>>>> conflict and a sharply colliding internal contradiction expressed
> in a
> >>>>>>> simultaneously positive and negative attitude towards the mother, a
> >>>>>>> terrible attachment to her and an equally terrible hate for her,
> combined
> >>>>>>> with terribly contradictory behaviour. He asked to be sent home
> >>>>>>> immediately, but expressed terror when the subject of his going
> home was
> >>>>>>> brought up."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In contrast, the oldest child is able to view the situation with
> more
> >>>>>>> detachment, because he is less dependent. His emotion of one of
> pity: of
> >>>>>>> sorrow and compassion, not of love and fear. Sorrow and compassion
> can
> >>>>>>> coexist; they do not contradict one another. He views his mother
> not as a
> >>>>>>> bad person, a witch, but as a sick person, someone who is ill, or
> weak. She
> >>>>>>> acts badly, but this does not mean that she is a bad person. This,
> then,
> >>>>>>> means that he knows what to do: he has "a special role," with a
> "duty" to
> >>>>>>> take care of both his mother and his younger sibling.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here, emotion has become subordinated to cognition. The oldest
> child has a
> >>>>>>> single, coherent way of interpreting his mother - she is ill. His
> emotions
> >>>>>>> follow from that cognition, rather than the other way round.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LSV writes that the oldest child "understood that their mother was
> ill and
> >>>>>>> he pitied her.... And he had a special role. He must calm his
> mother down,
> >>>>>>> make certain that she is prevented from harming the little ones
> and comfort
> >>>>>>> them. Quite simply, he has become the senior member of the family,
> the only
> >>>>>>> one whose duty it was to look after everyone else".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In short, LV illustrates the relationship between emotion and
> cognition in
> >>>>>>> each of these three children, and so shows how that relationship
> changes
> >>>>>>> with age.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The youngest child is probably a toddler, the second a
> preschooler, and
> >>>>>>> the oldest a school-aged child.
> >>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Robyn Babaeff <
> robyn.babaeff@monash.edu>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Just thinking out loud here!!!!, but could the dialectic involving
> >>>>>>>> perezhivanie be an internal one between the affective-cognitive
> >>>>>>> connection?
> >>>>>>>> As social mediation occurs cognitive conceptualising moves into a
> >>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>> realm, but perhaps does not sync with the internal affective
> position of
> >>>>>>>> the moment in time.  This could also occur vice-versa where there
> is
> >>>>>>>> emotive movement but the thinking is opposing the feeling. Then
> as the
> >>>>>>>> cognitive-affective sync - the overall transformation occurs from
> the
> >>>>>>>> internal crisis of disconnected affective-cognitive.  As the
> >>>>>>> connectedness
> >>>>>>>> takes place the growth/change develops???? And in turn
> >>>>>>>> motive/action/subjective situating is in transforming motion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 13 October 2014 22:12, Rod Parker-Rees <
> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which is  a useful reminder that the same is true of any and
> every word,
> >>>>>>>>> but to differing degrees. We may feel that we are all operating
> with the
> >>>>>>>>> same meaning (znachenie) when we use a word in a context like
> this
> >>>>>>>>> discussion but each of us 'means' something different by it
> because we
> >>>>>>> each
> >>>>>>>>> have our own  sense (smysl) of its significance (which includes
> our
> >>>>>>>>> awareness of how it is fought over, what sort of people can be
> expected
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> use it more or less as we do,  how it may annoy or mislead some
> people,
> >>>>>>>>> etc.). To say we speak the 'same' language can only ever be an
> >>>>>>>>> approximation. As I see it, this is why meaning must be
> negotiated in
> >>>>>>>>> discussion rather than asserted by proclamation - we get closer
> to
> >>>>>>>>> understanding how a particular person uses particular words when
> we get
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> know that person as a person and that involves much more than
> just
> >>>>>>> batting
> >>>>>>>>> words to and fro!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Rod
> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
> >>>>>>>>> on behalf of Patrick Jaki [patrick.jaki@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: 13 October 2014 12:00
> >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Does perezhivanie have a direct equivalent translation in
> English?  Is
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> not part of the problem that a word in its original language, in
> this
> >>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>> Russian, cannot be translated directly into other languages,
> which adds
> >>>>>>>>> onto our problem of making sense and meaning of it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 13 October 2014 10:57, Martin John Packer <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Andy,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I agree that it's an example and illustration that cannot
> capture
> >>>>>>>>>> everything.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But I think you've got the chemistry wrong! If I remember my
> college
> >>>>>>>>>> chemistry correctly, H2O isn't a combination of H+ and OH-,
> because
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> would imply an asymmetry that does not in fact exist. Oxygen is
> >>>>>>> strongly
> >>>>>>>>>> electronegative, meaning it draws electrons from the hydrogen
> atoms,
> >>>>>>>>>> leading to a bond between an O+ ion and two H- ions.  This has
> the
> >>>>>>>>>> consequence that the water molecule a dipole, which leads to
> hydrogen
> >>>>>>>>>> bonding between water molecules, the result of which is that
> water is a
> >>>>>>>>>> liquid at room temperature while other hydrides formed from
> elements
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> are close to oxygen in the periodic table are gases.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, yes, there are tensions and contradictions in the
> *formation* of
> >>>>>>>>>> water. My point was that once formed, there are no
> contradictions
> >>>>>>> driving
> >>>>>>>>>> further development. That's not entirely true; water does
> partially
> >>>>>>>>>> dissociate, into H3O+ and OH-. This means that a body of water
> is
> >>>>>>>>> actually
> >>>>>>>>>> in constant change, creating and breaking hydrogen bonds, and
> >>>>>>>>> dissociating
> >>>>>>>>>> and reassociating. A dynamic stasis, if you like. But it doesn't
> >>>>>>> develop
> >>>>>>>>>> further.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 11:51 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St?? ????a??, 12 ??t?ß???? 2014, ? ???st?? Andy
> Blunden <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ???a?e:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> *Patrick Jaki*
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *P. O Box 505 WitsJohannesburg2050South Africa*
> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> [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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> *Robyn Babaeff*
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> *Robyn Babaeff*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>