Hi Judith and xmca readers.
Many thanks to Judy for doing the hard part--the synopsis of the chapter, and I
am chiming in a bit late, folks, forgive me.
The notable things to me about chapter 5 are the ideas of arriving at a point in
analysis where participants have a provided language for working out a springboard
for transformation, and the relationship between an individual's personal
experience
and reflection that may start constructing a springboard, and how this related to
the overall transformation involving others in the system. My question is about
how one gets from the experience of the individual as he/she looks at the system
in a new way,
or begins to experience/participate in a new way(the personal experience of
revelation) and how this relates to what happens to the rest of the members of a
community. How is this experience communicated? The image of the springboard
is, in a way, an individual who walks out onto it, bounces and goes up. Does this
happen necessarily for people in a system "one at a time"? Couldn't one "bounce
out" of the activity in such a time of revelation as easily as being positioned to
"spring forward" into the next phase?
I will have more to say and to ask later today--I just wanted to begin with this
key image
and see what we can do with this metaphor.
Katherine Brown
Judith Diamondstone wrote:
> Chapter 5 begins with Scribner's discussion of V's "uses of history" to set
> up the cornerstone of Cul-His method: the historical analysis of structural
> change in whatever object of concern; and to describe its limitations --
> first, the need for empirical research on particular systems of activity
> (the U.S. tradition of psychology helps to fill that gap in the development
> of CH psychology); second, the need to study, in addition to processes of
> "interiorization" through which sociocultural knowledge is acquired by
> individuals, the cycles of expansion whereby new systems of activity are
> created (from ch. 4, whereby the transition is made from problem-solving at
> the level of individual action to a cycle of collective learning in
> 'orchestrated polyphony'). History is "both interiorization and expansion";
> The LBE project is to use the model of an historical cycle of expansion
> (which I must take on faith as such) as an instrument for 'developmental
> research'.
>
> The rest of the chapter presents the methods of developmental research,
> starting first with 'in-dwelling' among participants in an activity system,
> acquiring their perspectives in order to identify the primary contradiction
> underlying the problems as seen by them. This is followed by delineating
> the acgtivity system.
>
> Analysis is 3-pronged -- 1. object-historical analysis = identifying phases
> of development & "uncovering" secondary contradictions. But note that the
> analysis begins by identifying transformations of the object, and the
> object itself is understood as a system of activity, both a "component"
> within the "central activity" and at the same time somewhat independent of
> it.
>
> I should say that the explanation of methods remains for me abstract and
> vague; I haven't tested them against the AT-based case studies I've read,
> and I have no practical experience in developmental research to pin it to,
> so I'm just summarizing most of this.
>
> Anyway, the next dimension of analysis is "theory-historical" -- this makes
> sense to me: identifying the mediating artifacts of the system, the
> conceptual instruments, the tacit and explicit theories; -- then it slips
> past what I know into delineating "the instrument-producing activities
> behind those theories." The goal is to describe the formation of secondary
> contradictions related to the secondary instruments of the different phases
> of activity.
>
> The 3rd dimension of analysis is "actual-empirical" performed on the models
> "professed and actually used" by the participants -- YE recommends
> analyzing each at all three levels of AT and as *declarative conceptions;
> *procedural performances; *social discourses; *communicational networks;
> and *organizational structures. That's a lot of analysis. And it should be
> done "with the help" of historical analysis anbd the 'five general
> historical models" that I haven't yet mentioned :)
> prototypes; classificatory models; procedural models; systemic models; germ
> cell models.
>
> An important result of the analyses is or should be the definition of an
> "object-unit" in any developmental phase. The 'object unit" is the slice of
> the object that is handled by the subject at particular moments; tracing
> the object-unit shows how the object is transformed from raw material to
> product and it foregrounds the relations of individual actions to the whole
> activity. But most important, the aim is not a detached analysis by the
> researcher but the involved recognition by the participants of the
> secondary contradiction within their activity. It is to 'midwife' / bring
> about a double bind at the level of the activity system. This I see as the
> key to LBE, and a very tricky key it seems to me.
>
> After this, I would think, it's all downhill, but YE describes the next
> methodological step as the most "dramatic". The conditions are set up for
> the collective development of new instruments. This cycle of developmental
> research is performed in 3 steps: 1) find a springboard 2) formulate
> instrumental models, and 3) construct a microcosm for testing the new
> instruments.
>
> Finding a springboard means constructing a notational system for
> representing the overall structure and dynamics of the contradictry
> situation in a way that is both holistic and finely analyzed. Take a breath
> here. YE gets to this point through a discussion of Altshuller, which
> someone else can present if wanted. The point is that participants in the
> system ARE PROVIDED a way of talking about what is going on, a
> meta-discourse informed by the object-historical/ theory-historical/ and
> actual-empirical analyses. They use the meta-discourse to get to a
> springboard, which is a reveletory moment, a creative insight, or some such
> thing, which might actually occur retrospectively, after the formulation of
> a new model. The springboard can bounce the individual participant
> backwards toward a synthetic view of the developmental phase they have just
> completed.
>
> So the analysis leads to 'a sketchy hypotehtic model' of the next
> developmental phase. To elaborate it is to elaborate each constituent
> element of the activity system into new versions, starting with the object
> or the instrument of activity: to reconceptualize the objedct (or the
> instrument), one must reconceptualize the subject, the community, etc. The
> elaborated, final models are developed collectively.
>
> The final step in this phase of developmental research is to form a
> microcosm, which means to form a social unit based on intersubjectivity at
> the level of the collective, or "reflective communication" [at the level
> of action, YE proposes, intersubjectivity is goal-oriented 'cooperation';
> at the level of operation, it's mere 'coordination' of actions] In
> reflective communication, the most 'advanced' form of intersubjectivity,
> the focus of reflection and self-regulation is the system as a whole. In
> every cycle of learning activity the expansive transition takes learning
> from the individual to the collective level.
>
> There are 2 more phases to go -- the new instruments have to be applied and
> then the whole process has to be reported. Katherine can take it from here.
> The project, as stated in the last paragraph of the chapter, is to make
> 'cycles of expansive transition collectively mastered journeys through
> zones of proximal development... it aims at furnishing people with tertiary
> and secondary instruments necessary for the mastery of qualitative
> transformations of their activity systems."
>
> What I find exciting about the project is that it begins with existing
> systems of activity, in the realm of the everyday, and it introduces what
> one might call instruments for disturbing the status quo by 'uncovering'
> internal contradictions, and it seems (I may be wrong) to depend on a kind
> of reflexivity that isn't 'within' an individual but among individuals.
> What I find troubling/ confusing is that so much depends on the external
> analyst, including the development of a meta-discourse. Politically, I
> would prefer to imagine the analysis and development of modeling tools as
> more 'bottom up' or at least more collaborative. I am also wary of claims
> for 'reflective communication' at the level of activity. My guess is that
> the 'intersubjectivity' supposedly realized here would disintegrate under a
> semiotic analysis. BUt I am imposing an external interpretation of it onto
> the project; it's hard for me to imagine concretely, in any detail, the
> specific methodological steps.
>
> Judy
>
> At 09:54 AM 6/2/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >Having reached a small gap in an otherwise overly packed set obligations,
> >I tried going back this morning to see where the discussion of LBD 4 stood.
> >But as luck would have it it, while the April archive is posted on lchc.ucsd.
> >edu/xmca, May is not, and somehow the discussion "complexed" into Vygotsky's
> >"crisis."
> >
> >I missed the transition. And any event, I am aware that our local academic
> >year is coming to an end, Yrjo returns to the land of cell phones and the
> >midnight sun, and our allotted time for reading LBE comes to an end.
> >
> >Reading through 4e (without recourse to earlier posts) I am impressed by the
> >way it provides a lot pointers to what it means to talk about CHAT as an
> >interdisciplinary undertaking, if not a new discipline (with lots of
> pointers to its methodology).
> >
> >So, for example, I re-enjoyed the discussion of phenomenology and
> >the delineation of the activity system which, retrospectively, I
> >can see underpinning a lot of the work that has led to the "change
> >lab" methodology which Yrjo and his colleagues curently use. And
> >the connection of that method to Vygotsky's methodology of "dual
> >stimulation" is strongly brought to mind. I have not read Altshuller,
> >but found the discussion of his strategy for ferreting out contradictions
> >consistent with the forms of participant observation that a number of
> >us locally engage in. And Yrjo'
> >s comment that " A genuine expansive cycle inevitably produces not
> >only civilization (he is referring here to the 7 brother's story)
> >but an ingredient of wildness" also fits the phenomenology of my
> >recent experiences.
> >
> >His conclusion also resonates strongly for me:
> >
> >Reporting and assessing outcomes of expansive research is not easy.
> >The voyage through the zone of proximal development is best followed
> >and recorded by employing a set of multiple methods, ranging from
> >phenomenological and anthropological observation of historical
> >analysis of performances, conceptions and discourse practices. The
> >sheer amount and variety of data collected make new types of report
> >ing necessary.
> >
> >
> >Amen to that. Hopefully members of this list will provide each other
> >with positive examples of how these challenges can be met.
> >
> >Chapter 5? Is there a leader lurking in the wings? It seems to offer
> >a lot of reprises on recent discussions both within and outside of
> >LBE itself.
> >mike
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:06 PDT