Dear Mike,
Thanks for your e-mail. I am aware of *some* certainly not all of the
studies you mention and so find your itemizing of those helpful in the
vein that I was looking for.
I did not mean to imply that I didn't know about *any* examples myself
(I have certainly picked up some along the way on this discussion list),
but was looking forward to a systematic opportunity for AT/CHAT
Generations A, B, C (?) ;-) to provide insights not only into the
studies, what they examined and the theories employed but what positive
impact they are known or believed to have had.
So I guess it is a kind of meta-evaluative discourse on AT/CHAT studies
and their uses; and yes the international course might be a great venue
for that ;-)
I think like others I am always looking for an "ascent to the concrete"
of AT/CHAT approaches ;-)
And I do understand the dialogues about building the plane while flying
it, or building the road while walking it that makes it untenable (and
perhaps undesirable) to elaborate specific AT/CHAT methods, but rather
to apprehend or design them in specific, situated contexts.
I have read, for example, the "Perspectives on Activity Theory" volume.
The opening explications of the history and theories of AT appeal to
me. I enjoy reading the studies, but cannot always connect the dots
between the theories illuminated at the outset of the volume and some of
the specific studies that are included as, I assume, representative of
AT approaches (not at all to detract from the value or interest in those
studies). I just find myself trying to understand their AT-ness in
particular.
I do find myself wondering, for instance, whether the same study may
have been as readily written for a book on say "linguistic approaches to
social and cultural phenomena," or "anthropological and sociological
approaches to learning environments," etc. I am interested in
understanding more fully the *value-add* of AT/CHAT.
Certainly part of it is precisely that AT/CHAT does open itself to
interdisciplinary methodologies, that nonetheless draw substantively
from the work of the "troika" and various other AT/CHAT
theorists/practitioners discussed as shining lights on this listserv.
The cultural-historical nexus (?) is key; the role of tools and
artifacts within and giving rise to actions and activity are also
central. Unpacking motive, object and purpose and the examination of
divisions of labor are resonant themes as well (thought not always taken
up in studies I've read).
I am particularly interested in the point at which studies might shift
from being descriptive to being transformative. What do those
transformative moments look like, how could they be recognized, in the
report of a study? And how are they experienced by various actors
"participating" in an AT/CHAT study? Could there be such a thing as
AT/CHAT action research (I would assume you might see 5th D work filling
this bill)? Or is all AT/CHAT research conceived as "action research?"
Again, I don't ask these questions because I feel I have no notion at
all of what possible or partial answers there are to these questions, or
because I feel I've seen no evidence of examples (on the contrary, the
list has been helpful in this regard).
It is, perhaps, that I'd like to be better able to articulate the
positive impact or concrete effects to be had from engaging in AT/CHAT
research (perhaps even in comparision/contrast to other forms of
research).
Not meaning to sound overly naive, but perhaps failing miserably ;-)
Yes, maybe a well-organized international course will be just the ticket
;-)
In Peace,
K.
As I write
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 01 2002 - 01:00:06 PDT