[Xmca-l] Re: Wikipedia CHAT entry

Sun Jan 28 12:54:43 PST 2018

Looking at the history of the page, there are several authors, but clearly one that has written most of the (over 500) entries. But I agree with you Mike that the point is not so much to get in touch with who has written the entries but rather to continue contributing by further adding, probably much better way to get in touch with her or him, or rather them or us. 

Though not a la Helsinki, I do use and refer to Engeström's work often, and I find his work one of the finest in recent and current CHAT writing and theorising. I know many who run work a la Helsinki doing a wonderful work at it and neither them nor Engeström are about self aggrandizement to me.
Alfredo
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Sent: 28 January 2018 19:26
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Wikipedia CHAT entry

Yes, I understand that about Wikipedia, Michael. Which is why I asked how
had been doing it. It seems that if someone wanted to fill out an entry on
CHAT
to include the multivoicedness of developments in recent decades it would
be best
to collaborate on additions, or at least know what the others are doing and
why.
There is your line of work, the line developed by Hedegaard and Fleer, and
more.
mike

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> my understanding is that anyone can author once accepted by wikipedia. So
> there may be many authors, who author and re-author the text that is seen.
> Michael
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:13 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Dear Colleagues-
> >
> >      I am kind of surprised at the response to my query about the
> > authorship of the Wikipedia
> > page. I have always interpreted the 1-2-3 generation characterization of
> > Helsinki's school's as
> > indexing the increasing complexity of the systems of activity that are
> > being described/analyzed,
> > and used for the design of new interventions that seek to address
> perceived
> > problems of some
> > community/organization. The subject-medium-object unit, the s-m-o unit
> as a
> > constituent of a collective activity, and the collective activity in
> > relation to other activities with which it interacts. News of the fourth
> > generation has not filtered down here to the periphery.
> >
> > This kind of expansion has been accompanied by a shift in disciplinary
> > identity. CHAT is not a classical psychological approach. The Russians
> use
> > the term, "non-classical psychology" even for LSV's work. But once one
> > moves to the study of activity, anthropology and sociology come into
> > play.... at least so it seems to me. And of course, the linkage with
> > various flavors of linguistics have been present since before the
> beginning
> >
> > I felt a strong kinship with the idea of a psychology that took everyday,
> > joint, mediated, activity as a unit of analysis. Perhaps no more than
> > sloppy eclecticism ensued. Many of my Russian and Western European
> > colleague seem to think so. Certainly, my everyday notion of activity did
> > not take on the philosophical heritage of German/Russian discussions of
> > deyatelnost and Tategkeit. Nor was I sensitive to the social/societal
> > distinction, Etc. But I found Yrjo's reconstruction/expansion
> > useful and still do. At the same time, ideas associated with the "3rd
> > generation" formulation have proven useful in thinking about
> > university-community collaborations. I would, of course, prefer
> > even strong intellectual tools, so like Yrjo I look to actor network
> > theory, distributed cognition, and other frameworks that seem to help me
> > understand the processes of learning/development/change that I observe
> and
> > participate in.  Reducing Yrjo's work to self aggrandizement seems to be
> > really
> > unfortunate.
> >
> > If one looks at the iconography of American appropriations of Vygotsky,
> the
> > cover of Luis Moll's (1990) book on Vygotsky and Education has a triangle
> > inside a circle -- mediated action in context. Yrjo declared that the
> > activity IS the context a couple of years later. Now look at the
> > iconography in the newest edition of that book. No triangle, just circles
> > -- the activity has become the context (a la
> > Bronfenbrener). Doesn't feel like progress to me.
> >
> > Was there politics in the research of LCHC? Of course. It involved
> > agreements over the distribution
> > of resources within the university, the professional community, etc. I
> > would like to think that the work
> > was more than self-aggrandizement, but may that is simply a self
> > aggrandizing illusion.
> >
> > So, I renew my question. Does anyone know who the author of the wikipedia
> > page is/was? A lot of
> > work went in to creating it, and it seems that the best way to block
> > invidious interpretations of
> > "third generation" as new, better, shinier, and truer, is to continue the
> > narrative of the wikipedia
> > entry through inclusion of other variations in the development of
> > Vygotsky's ideas. Of course, that would
> > require labor, but if there is no will, there is no way.
> >
> > In the meantime, a discussion on XMCA that was inviting to our colleagues
> > who think they are participating in the development of 3rd Generation AT
> > theorizing a la Helsinki, and do not think of themselves as self
> > aggrandizing bad people, seems to me as if it might be useful.
> >
> > my two centavos
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There are a couple of related senses in which the term "generation" may
> > be
> > > heard here: as in a new major development in the theory, so that this
> > > generation is some form of evolution from the previous one; and as it
> > > regards to nationality, of being the third, fourth or "n" line of
> > offspring
> > > following some original.
> > >
> > > As a new comer to CHAT, when I went to the ISCAR Summer University in
> > > Moscow in 2011, I remember people there complaining that, if someone in
> > > Finland was claiming the third generation, who were then they, who had
> > been
> > > attending to and learning from the lectures of those who had attended
> to
> > > and learned from the very founder's lectures?
> > >
> > > It soon comes into issues of legitimacy and authorship that may easily
> > > confuse newcomers, I think. But then again,
> > > there is a history, there are indeed lineages and developments, and we
> > > need categories to mark those up, I guess.
> > > Alfredo
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >
> > > on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: 28 January 2018 14:17
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Wikipedia CHAT entry
> > >
> > > Re "The work you do by calling it 3rd generation is making a
> distinction
> > > with other forms of AT. That's all."
> > >
> > > Of course it isn't all, Michael. It is misleading anyone new to the
> field
> > > (and who has not had the experience of knowing how knowledge gets
> reduced
> > > or made superficial) into thinking that this is where the new work is
> > done
> > > and that this is supposed to represent the leading edge of the work. It
> > is
> > > political in that this unwarranted status functions as an attractor for
> > > such research-related attention, which is further supported in other
> > ways.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Huw
> > >
> > > On 28 January 2018 at 12:51, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Huw,
> > > > you may be hung up with words, perhaps in search of these elusive
> > > meanings.
> > > >
> > > > I am not doing that kind of work anymore, but I think using the
> > adjective
> > > > distinguishes other forms of theory use from the one that has evolved
> > > > around the Helsinki triangle. The work you do by calling it 3rd
> > > generation
> > > > is making a distinction with other forms of AT. That's all.
> > > >
> > > > And your comment about politics---this appears a truism if you take
> the
> > > > stand of Voloshinov.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Huw Lloyd <
> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anyone who has carefully studied the historical works of AT, which
> > are
> > > > > psychological, would know that it is nonsense to call this a "third
> > > > > generation". Calling it a "third generation" is a political
> > manoeuvre.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Huw
> > > > >
> > > > > On 28 January 2018 at 01:56, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Huw,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I had worked on those ideas as well:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Roth, W.-M. (2007). The ethico-moral nature of identity:
> > Prolegomena
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > development of third-generation cultural-historical activity
> > theory.
> > > > > > International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 83-93
> > > > > > Roth, W.-M. (2007). Emotion at work: A contribution to
> > > third-generation
> > > > > > cultural historical activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity,
> > 14,
> > > > > 40-63.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Huw Lloyd <
> > > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is anyone other than Engestrom claiming that their work is 3rd
> > > > > generation
> > > > > > > AT? Are there any Russian psychologists clamouring to
> understand
> > > what
> > > > > > > improvements have been made to their system in this "3rd
> > > generation"?
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > doesn't seem like a careful depiction to me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Huw
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 27 January 2018 at 18:49, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just stumbled across the wikipedia page. Someone put a lot
> of
> > > > work
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > that entry. It would be
> > > > > > > > interesting to discuss with whose who put it together so
> > > carefully.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Check it out.
> > > > > > > > mike
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural-
> > > > > > > > historical_activity_theory&action=history
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>