[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Bridges between frameworks

The links to organizational studies, in my view, is a link to the study of
activity systems at the cultural-historical level. Linking cultural
historical-ontogenetic and microgenetic levels is central to what many at
lchc are currently worrying about. Note that Yrjo
often publishes in such journals.

With respect to the conclusion  :

"Moreover, Gordon emphasizes that “the concreteness of the individual is
unsubstituteable, the encounter is unrepeatable, the person and the moment
are absolute” (Natanson, quoted in Gordon, 1995: 50), in other words,

While i get the general impulse, this statement helps me not at all. Its
like saying
every experience is unique. You can't step in the same river twice.
but we can also count "stopping at the corner for coffee on the way in to
the office" or
"reading an email from xmca" as (sometimes) boringly repeatable.

Linking levels requires a lot of complexity of analysis and a lot of
patience while waiting for the phenomena to pop up for observation over
longish time periods.
A core difficulty chat researchers face.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Christine recently sent me a 1 page article introducing the scholar Janet
> Borgerson.
>  I'm going to send it as an attachment if others are interested. It locates
> one stream of scholarship that may have links to CHT and CHAT.
> Mike has pointed out that we should encourage reflections that engage
> multiple "levels" of analysis.
> Borgerson engages the larger "organizational" level with the
> "intersubjective" dialogical level.
> If others are interested, Christine sent a second article by Janet I could
> send out.
> Larry
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list