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

Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?


keskiviikko 12. kesäkuuta 2013 Greg Thompson kirjoitti:

> Antti,
> And not to overwhelm you Antti, (and first thanks for sharing your notes
> with me offline), but I have a follow-up question about how the concept of
> "knots" and "knotworking" is being used by Engestrom and Sannino (I recall
> some fondness for knots and knotworking by folks at LCHC - Jay, Mike, Ivan,
> Camille, and Robert preeminent among them, but most literally embodied by
> the work of Rachel Pfister who is studying Ravelry - an online knitting
> community - knots indeed!).
> With regard to the concept of knots and the librarians, I see at least two
> uses: one in which knots are positive, as in knots intentionally tied, and
> in which you imbricate the interests of others with your own interests (and
> it seems that this would be wise for librarians to do...), and the other in
> which knots are negative, as in knots that are caused by unfortunate
> circumstances, and in which the aim is to "work" out the knots that others
> are experiencing in their lives (something that would also be wise for
> librarians to do and which will de facto result in the first kind of
> intended knots!).
> In the end I'm just wondering what work the concept of "knots" and
> "knotworking" are doing for the librarians?
> Any chance you could provide some insight into this knotty problem? And
> perhaps unravel the knot that my words have caught me up in (or, perhaps,
> which I have tied...)?
> -greg
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> Antti, I was directing my question to you and your remarks.
> In Engestrom's highlky regarded, now out of print, 1987 text "Learning by
> Expanding", the famous triangle logo is given as Figure 2.6, and after a
> long consideration of "candidates" for "unit of analysis" he says the
> following about this triangle: "The model of Figure 2.6 may now be compared
> with the four criteria of a root model of human activity, set forth earlier
> in this chapter." and goes on to list and consider the criteria which are
> commonly associated in this current with the notion of "unit of analysis."
> (numerous citations are not required). But he never said that the triangle
> is a unit of analaysis, and it is not, and cannot be. He said it is a root
> model and it is. The root model is a system concept, not a unit of analysis.
> Do you think it possible that this has been the source of some confusion?
> Andy
> Antti Rajala wrote:
> Thanks Andy for sharing the wikipedia text, and your thoughts about the
> issue! The thoughts about unit of analysis were my own interpretation of
> the study, and I am not sure if the issue you raised concerns the original
> study.
> Warm wishes, Antti
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>     Antti, here is a link to th eWikipedia on "System concept"
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**System<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System>
>     Why do Activity Theorists in Engstrom's current of thinking mix up
>     the idea of a system concept with a unit of analysis?
>     Andy
>     Antti Rajala wrote:
>         Greg,
>         You asked:
>         ”My question is getting at where we locate "agency". In
>         individuals alone?
>         Or as possibly being distributed among multiple people and
>         perhaps in
>         amanner that isn't recognizable to the individual. But maybe
>         there is
>         aconcept for that that is different from "double stimulation.”
>         I think that double stimulation can be analyzed not only at
>         the individual
>         level but at the collective level as well. Actually, the study
>         of Engeström
>         and Sannino (2013) that I referred to in my earlier email
>         gives a nice
>         example. The study also involves in some respects a similar
>         situation as
>         the one that you described having taken place with the workers
>         in Malaysia.
>         According to my reading, the study describes a change laboratory
>         intervention taking place in a university library. The library
>         as invited
>         researchers to help them find new forms of work with research
>         groups. A
>         first stimulus emerges in the course of the change laboratory
>         intervention,
>         as a member of one of the research groups that the university
>         library is
>         delivering services says that they can find these services in
>         the internet
>         without the help of the library. Thus a problem emerges for
>         the librarians
>         to collectively produce a service that would be genuinely
>         helpful for the
>         research groups.
>         In solving this problem, they organize their collective action
>         with the
>         help of a second stimulus, namely the concept of knotworking
>         (Engeström,
>         Engeström & Vähäaho, 1999) that the researchers have
>         introduced in the
>         beginning of the change laboratory. In particular, a new
>         working group, a
>         knot, is formed that starts to work with the emergent problem
>         of inventing
>         a useful service.
>         What is in my opinion very innovative, Engeström and Sannino
>         also provide
>         an example of this second stimulus, the concept of
>         knotworking, becoming an
>         initial theoretical generalization that is reworked and
>         enriched through a
>         process of ascending from abstract to concrete as the
>         intervention e
xmca mailing list