[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?
Sorry about this earlier empty email. My phone seems to have written
something on its own.
Antti Rajala wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Antti Rajala <email@example.com> wrote:
> keskiviikko 12. kesäkuuta 2013 Greg Thompson kirjoitti:
>> 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...)?
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
>> 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
>> Warm wishes, Antti
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com <mailto:
>> firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
>> Antti, here is a link to th eWikipedia on "System concept"
>> Why do Activity Theorists in Engstrom's current of thinking mix up
>> the idea of a system concept with a unit of analysis?
>> Antti Rajala wrote:
>> 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
>> 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 & 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