LCHC read the Fleer and Hedegaard paper and part of my weekend plan of
work is to post some comments on it. It is a HUGE undertaking of which
we are seeing only a part, and it raises a great variety of issues worth
deeper consideration. Just thinking of how much work went into taping
the 20 hours for this paper boggles my mind, never mind the amount it
requires to study the entire corpus. Its a really heroic project.
Here i want to restrict myself to a raising a single question. I have
long been interested in the issue of SSD which is not extensively
discussed by LSV. I was glad to be pointed at the Kravstova article in
JREEP 2006 which I had not read. (I have a pdf that I will send to
individuals who ask for it; it does not seem legitimate to post on XMCA
until or unless Lena K
gives her ok - If you want it, write to mcole@ucsd.edu
<mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>).
I was excited to read the F&H article, because it appeared to promise a
way to look at "SSD" as a heterogeneous complex (yep, that word). But
when I got to the end, I was not at all sure that it answered its own
basic research question (p. 153) although it clearly demonstrated
differences between home and school that several have comment on.
Here is what the authors tell us their main research question was:
/The study reported in this article focused on how practices at home
influence the child’s activity in school, and how practices in school
influence the demands on the child at home. The study also sought to
follow the transition of the child across these institutions in order to
see how different demands influence a child’s social situation of
development./
1. I can see how Andrew's mother was influenced by the demands of the
school and share her concerns about medication (more on that in a later
note). I can see how Andrew's behavior is different at school than it is
at home. But I do not see how home practices /influenced /school
behavior or vice versa.
2. I can see how the school is one social situation of development and
the home another for Andrew, but I do not understand how knowledge of
these two situationS of development tell us about THE situation of
development (singular).
3. THE situation development is presumably (this is an issue I have been
unable to resolve for myself) of all the situationS of development that
Andrew experiences. These include the transitions to and from school,
visits to sporting events, and going shopping which i look forward to
reading about.
So, my main question is how we arrive at THE SSD from observations in
two different institutions, home and school, and by extension to all the
other forms of activity Andrew experiences. I imagine it might be
conceptualized something like Figure 1, but that figure is not
designated as THE SSD.
Can the authors or fellow readers help me out here?
mike
(PS-- reading this on gmail, I note an advertisement for "Super SSD"-
I am afraid to look!) :-)
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Again, apologies for the pedantry ...
Larry Purss wrote:
Andy
I do see your point about seeing an authors concepts as situated
in a network or constellation of normative practices.
No. Two things: a constellation of artefacts on one hand, and on
the other, a network of practices. In my view it important to
distinguish these two clearly.
And No. Not "situated in", a situation.
Andy
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca