[Xmca-l] Re: Unit of Analysis
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Thu Sep 7 18:51:59 PDT 2017
"Andy added the notion that experts need basically to be
able to agree reliably on examples of the unit" ?
Researchers need to be clear about the unit of analysis each
of them are using and of course, collaboration is much
easier if you are all using the same unit of analysis.
Exemplars are a way of substantiating a concept while a
concept remains unclear or diverse, just like lists of
attributes and definitions - all of which still fall short
of a concept. To grasp the concept of something, like "unit
of analysis," you have to know the narrative in which the
concept is situated. Narrative knowledge and conceptual
knowledge are mutually interdependent. The first three
chapters of the story of "unit of analysis" as I see it are
in my paper "Goethe, Hegel & Marx" to be published in
"Science & Society" next year:
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-Hegel-Marx_public.pdf
- Vygotsky is the 4th chapter.
"What makes water not an element, but a compound, are the
relations between the subunits" ?
The idea of a water molecule pre-dates he discovery of its
composition as H2O and all the chemical properties related
to that. As David suggested, it is the much more ancient
knowledge of the "water cycle" - rain, snow, hail and fog
... run-off, streams, rivers, lakes ... seas, oceans ...
vapour, steam ... - which is expressed in the idea of a
"water molecule" - a tiny particle which all these things
are made of, but which combines in different forms of
movement to give us the various physical forms of what is
all water. It is an unfortunate choice for a archetypal
example, because it appears to contradict my claim that the
concept of the unit must be visceral. The water molecule is
so small it can be held in the hand, tossed around and
stacked together only in the imagination. Nonetheless, like
with metaphors, it is our visceral knowledge of particles
(stones, pieces of bread, household objects, etc) which
makes the concept of a "water molecule" something real to
us, whose manifold physical properties arising from its
V-shape, and its electrical stickiness, are meaningful. This
contrasts with the 18th/19th century idea of "forces" and
"fields" which are intangibles (though of course we find
ways of grasping them viscerally nonetheless).
Different phenomena are grasped by the way one and the same
units aggregate. The unit relates to the range of phenomena
it unifies. Different insights are provided by different
units, *not necessarily in a hierarchy*. But a hierarchy of
units and in particular the micro/macro pair are a theme
which runs right through this narrative, the micro in some
way "explaining" the macro which in turn explains the main
phenomena: cell/organism, atom/molecule, commodity/capital,
word meaning/utterance, artefact-mediated action/activity,
etc. I am interested in this micro/macro relation but
personally (despite my interest in Hegel) I am not a fan of
trying to systematise the world with a "complete set" of
units. Just one unit gives us an entire science. Let's not
get too carried away. :)
I hold the view, with A N Leontyev, that *Activities are
composed of artefact-mediated actions and nothing else*. Any
move away from this destroys the ontological foundation and
takes us into metaphysics. If it is not an artefact-mediated
action or aggregate of such actions, what the hell is it???
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
https://andyblunden.academia.edu/research
On 8/09/2017 3:41 AM, David Dirlam wrote:
> The issues that have arisen in this discussion clarify the
> conception of what sort of entity a "unit" is. Both and
> Andy and Martin stress the importance of the observer.
> Anyone with some experience should have some sense of it
> (Martin's point). But Andy added the notion that experts
> need basically to be able to agree reliably on examples of
> the unit (worded like the psychological researcher I am,
> but I'm sure Andy will correct me if I missed his meaning).
>
> We also need to address two other aspects of units--their
> classifiability and the types of relations between them.
> What makes water not an element, but a compound, are the
> relations between the subunits (the chemical bonds between
> the elements) as well as those with other molecules of
> water (how fast they travel relative to each other), which
> was David Kellogg's point. So the analogy to activity is
> that it is like the molecule, while actions are like the
> elements. What is new to this discussion is that the
> activity must contain not only actions, but also
> relationships between them. If we move up to the
> biological realm, we find a great increase in the
> complexity of the analogy. Bodies are made up of more than
> cells, and I'm not just referring to entities like
> extracellular fluid. The identifiability, classification,
> and interrelations between cells and their constituents
> all help to make the unit so interesting to science.
> Likewise, the constituents of activities are more than
> actions. Yrjo's triangles illustrate that. Also, we need
> to be able to identify an activity, classify activities,
> and discern the interrelations between them and their
> constituents.
>
> I think that is getting us close to David Kellogg's aim of
> characterizing the meaning of unit. But glad, like him, to
> read corrections.
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> Yes, but I think, Martin, that the unit of analysis we
> need to aspire to is *visceral* and sensuous. There
> are "everyday" concepts which are utterly abstract and
> saturated with ideology and received knowledge. For
> example, Marx's concept of capital is
> buying-in-order-to-sell, which is not the "everyday"
> concept of capital at all, of course.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
> https://andyblunden.academia.edu/research
> <https://andyblunden.academia.edu/research>
>
> On 7/09/2017 8:48 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
>
> Isn’t a unit of analysis (a germ cell) a
> preliminary concept, one might say an everyday
> concept, that permits one to grasp the phenomenon
> that is to be studied in such a way that it can be
> elaborated, in the course of investigation, into
> an articulated and explicit scientific concept?
>
> just wondering
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Not sure if others might feel this is an
> oversimplification of unit of
> analysis, but I just came across this in
> Wortham and Kim's Introduction to
> the volume Discourse and Education and found
> it useful. The short of it is
> that the unit of analysis is the unit that
> "preserves the
> essential features of the whole".
>
> Here is their longer explanation:
>
> "Marx (1867/1986) and Vygotsky (1934/1987)
> apply the concept "unit of
> analysis" to social scientific problems. In
> their account, an adequate
> approach to any phenomenon must find the right
> unit of analysis - one that
> preserves the essential features of the whole.
> In order to study water, a
> scientist must not break the substance down
> below the level of an
> individual H20 molecule. Water is made up of
> nothing but hydrogen and
> oxygen, but studying hydrogen and oxygen
> separately will not illuminate the
> essential properties of water. Similarly,
> meaningful language use requires
> a unit of analysis that includes aspects
> beyond phonology,
> grammar, semantics, and mental
> representations. All of these linguistic and
> psychological factors play a role in
> linguistic communication, but natural
> language use also involves social action in a
> context that includes other
> actors and socially significant regularities."
>
> (entire chapter can be found on Research Gate at:
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319322253_Introduction_to_Discourse_and_Education
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319322253_Introduction_to_Discourse_and_Education>
> )
>
> I thought that the water/H20 metaphor was a
> useful one for thinking about
> unit of analysis.
>
> -greg
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> <http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list