Factigenetic, CP3-5, triadi

Bill Barowy (Bill_Barowy who-is-at terc.edu)
6 Jul 1997 20:26:47 U

Reply to: Factigenetic, CP3-5, triadic asymmetry

Late exchanges have flooded my mind with thoughts never as playful! The
scales of analysis, micro, meso, ... phylo have utility in theory for
describing events we think are significant over those timescales. I am
thankful for the latest, describing the institutional scale, because it aptly
describes a unit of analysis that appears significant for my own work. Units
and scales of analysis seem coupled, and drawing upon Jay's analogy to
physical theory, the coupling is plausible and reasonable. In physical
theory, units of time offer characteristics of interactions, for example
interactions between atoms are described with a timescale quite different
than interactions between planets.

Within a systems theory one can focus on timescale and describe a particular
level of analysis, risking, of course, too great a simplification. An
ontogenetic description may slice across the plane of an mesogenetic
description - a person joining, and participating in xmca as part of their
life-long growth. Yet the 'individual' unit of analysis is useful - and can
be dangerous if not positioned within the systems in which the individual
participates. Microgenesis is useful for classrooms, but those who have
spent time trying to intervene in classrooms have been forced to recognize
interactions across larger timescales and levels of interaction. (Figure 5.2
looms just ahead of my reading CP and I eagerly look forward to the text
description.)

Leading to CP3 questions below, a cultural-historical theory is
self-referential. I find in the work I have done that researchers'
interactions with a teacher trying to implement an intervention form a
system with motive that perturbs the experiment. The teacher, trying to
'please' the researchers, picks the highest performing students, takes center
stage to recover a situation in which students are struggling...
Researchers, trying to demonstrate the effectiveness of an intervention,
attempt to teach rather than inquire... Research groups will include
regulars from schools who have come to share expectations, routines etc.
within the system of the research group, and hence become non-representative
of mainstream teachers. A Ch approach can make this all explicit and fosters
moves that bolster these weaknesses.

CP3: CH approach will recognize Piaget's work to be influenced by the society
in which he lived. Does this mean we should question the metric of stage
theory for cross cultural studies? Although tasks might be made
culture-appropriate, aren't the underlying notions such as 'conservation'
culture-specific?

CP4: (applause for the bulleted list of CP main characteristics)

CP5: Factigenesis (root facere - to make) perhaps as a name for the
evolution of artifact (perhaps 'cultifact' might more usefully put culture in
the middle and carry the timescale) raises a theoretical issue of symmetry
for the mediation triangle. (Sorry, my physicist training is sticking out)
The other scales of analysis seems to focus on ensembles of subject/object -
and span many temporal lengths. Posing a scale of analysis for artifact
makes me wonder about the implied symmetry of the diagram. The triadic
relationship is *not* symetric. The history of the steam engine is not the
same as the history of James Watt, or electric power, - Artifact carries
across many subject/object systems - the steam engine used only for pumping
water out of mines at first, Watt working on a demonstration 'model',
reinventing a prototype, then appropriated to other uses by other folks. Let
me plead for a form not so symmetric as an equilateral triangle!

Bill B.