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

[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?



This problem of the ' unit of analysis' is my concern too. I supervise
three PHD students on Science Education in a CHAT context. Two of them on
early childhood science education and one on primary science. They have
collected log files, children discourses consisted of
scientific justifications, accepted rules, and forms of division of labor.
They have collected children narratives, and drawings. When they decided to
analyze their data they follow different paths into CHAT context mainly
modeling them using Engestrom's triangle. They still doubt about the " unit
of analysis".

Στις Κυριακή, 12 Οκτωβρίου 2014, ο χρήστης Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
έγραψε:

> Katie, picking up on your concern about units of analysis, it was one of
> the points I mentioned in my "report" from ISCAR, that this concept was
> almost lost to us. A phrase I heard a lot, and which was new for me, was
> "unit to be analysed." If anyone knows the origin of this expression, I'd
> be interested in hearing. It seemed to me that what it referred to was a
> "closed system" for analysis, that is, abandoning CHAT methodology whilst
> keeping the word. If I am mistaken about this, please let me know.
>
> The other thing is that discovering a unit of analysis is an *insight*. It
> is not something that can be achieved by following a template, it is the
> breakthrough in your research into some problem, the leap. It usually comes
> *after* you've collected all the data for your research using some other
> unit of analysis. In Kuhn's terms, discovery of the unit is the new
> paradigm, after which it is just a matter of solving puzzles. So for
> graduate students to use the concept of unit in their research, often
> depends on the wisdom of teh direction they get from their supervisor. I
> don't know how many PhD students I've met who have got to this point in
> their thesis and discover that the data they have is not the data they now
> know they need.
>
> Andy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Katherine Wester Neal wrote:
>
>> I like Holli's plan to commit some time to reading the two articles. But,
>> as usual, I don't know that I'll have much to contribute in posts. I
>> usually get deep in thinking about the posts and don't follow that through
>> to write something. The writing is much harder, and I am usually just
>> trying to keep up with reading!
>>
>> For me, the thread has been fascinating, probably because I'm interested
>> in different units of analysis, what they might be used for, and how they
>> fit together with theory and conducting research. What are people doing
>> with units of analysis and why? Or why aren't units of analysis being used?
>> If anyone wants to write more in that direction, I'd be very interested to
>> read, and I'll try to respond, although the questions might be as basic as
>> these.
>>
>> Lastly, Andy has basically been articulating my thoughts (in a much more
>> eloquent way than I would) about action as a unit of analysis. In Mike's
>> example about driving and thinking and writing, I'd add that the action is
>> mediated. Together with sociocultural and historical factors that
>> influenced those actions (and which, as has been said here before, are
>> often difficult to get a look at), the actions create a picture of much
>> more than just Mike's behavior.
>> Katie
>>
>> Katie Wester-Neal
>> University of Georgia
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
............................................................
Katerina Plakitsi
Associate Professor of Science Education
School of Education
University of Ioannina
University Campus Dourouti 45110
Ioannina
Greece
tel. +302651005771
fax. +302651005842
mobile.phone +306972898463

http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits
http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr
http://www.lib.uoi.gr/serp