Dear Mike,
I agree, yet think the bridge perhaps needs to be stronger or different
if we're looking for some situated connectedness among CHAT, action
research and/or action science, no? Whether we think other methods,
approaches do it well or not, don't most educational and social science
approaches somehow privilege practice for testing and/or developing
theory? (again, with my caveat that we may not think they all do it
well). Grounded Theory comes to mind as a methodology. Various
qualitative/ethnographic approaches seek to privilege practice, no? And
even the so-called "scientifically-based research" espouses looking for
practice-based evidence and practice-based outcomes as the only ground
on which to draw conclusions of effectiveness and efficacy. Yet, these
approaches often start from an "outsiders" perspective on a given
practice or set of practices - which I think is the key distinction from
participatory and/or action research (and, at times, CHAT). Or, what am
I missing? Don't these other approaches also privilege practice at some
level as the test of theory?
In Peace,
K.
Mike Cole wrote:
> I think the intrinsic connection between the two -- variously related--
> traditions is the chat
> principle that the iron test of theory is in practice, Kevin. That
> linkage
> can be made in various
> ways, of course, and is. But it provides a natural bridge.
> mike
>
> On 1/13/07, Kevin Rocap <Kevin.Rocap@liu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> Hi! A brief comment on some of Michael's good remarks and on Mike's,
>> below...
>>
>> Michael Glassman wrote:
>> > I don't know an enormous amount about action research, but I do think
>> that Argylis and Schon were very much inspired by Dewey and the idea of
>> experiential learning. ... - making the argument that those actually
>> engaged in the problem solving have a much better understanding of the
>> relationship between Argylis and Schon at least seem to be working
>> from the
>> same perspective - at least from what I can see - that members of an
>> organization have a better understanding of the problem solving than any
>> outsiders, and therefore a better chance of changing themselves when
>> researching how they actually do solve problems.
>> >
>>
>> You may be right about the inspiration Michael. From my, admittedly
>> now-a-bit-dated experience with Argyris's work, the actual evaluation,
>> assessment and change process involved in learning to distinguish
>> espoused theories from theories-in-use and to move from Model I to Model
>> II behavior relies heavily on external consultants (that's what Chris
>> was trying to train us to be ;-)).
>>
>> Granted the success of the change process ideally entails the
>> organizational participants themselves becoming better at openly
>> monitoring, questioning and responding to their own and each others' own
>> practices from within an action science framework (note action science
>> is not self-identical with action research, though part of what we're
>> doing here, I believe, is trying to instructively cull out the
>> similarities/differences, if any).
>>
>> At that point of change in the consulting process, it is interesting to
>> consider whether folks have simply changed their practices and so are
>> not really engaged in "research" per se, just in new behaviors. But
>> then I guess that brings us around to reflective practice, action
>> science and learning organizations in general. If one is an actively
>> participating member of a "learning organization" responsible for
>> ongoing and continuous inquiry, reflection and change is that
>> participation de facto a type of action research? Perhaps that leads us
>> to the cultural-historical pathway and associations with "research" with
>> its perhaps dominantly academic and/or scientific and/or social science
>> activity trajectories and baggage, no? How important is it to put
>> specific boundaries around research practice? And what should those
>> be? Would those include defining as research ongoing participation in
>> learning organizations?
>>
>> Regarding Mike's remarks on CHAT being useful for and sometimes utilized
>> in action research. Definitely, I agree - I included a bullet about the
>> usefulness of CHAT for action research for that reason (and your point
>> Mike that it not only lends itself to action research but that it has
>> been explicitly used for action research is a good one). My only point
>> is that I don't think there is anything to suggest that making use of a
>> CHAT framework equals or automatically implies being engaged in action
>> research. CHAT has been used plenty to engage in external research of
>> others' activities and actions, no? And your comment Mike seemed to me
>> even a bit more nuanced in that by looking through the lens of activity
>> theory and related CHAT theories and concepts you could simultaneously
>> be studying activity outside of your own practice AND your own practice
>> as a researcher (if I'm not reading into your comment too much). This
>> would be yet another combination/hybrid kind of research, imho.
>>
>> In Peace,
>> K.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:32 PST