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

[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?



Much appreciated Martin - this is feeling more visual, and now I am
wondering is it possible to interpret that the older child's emotive
drive/action of care  for his mother and younger sibling in its moment is
also connected a socially mediated aspect of cognition from somewhere/time
in his earlier years of perezhivanie for the 'how to' in his choosing/drive
for duty of care?

On 13 October 2014 23:21, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
wrote:

> > Just thinking out loud here!!!!, but could the dialectic involving
> > perezhivanie be an internal one between the affective-cognitive
> connection?
>
>
> It seems to me that when LSV contrasts the consequence of their mother's
> drinking for the three children, he is precisely sketching the dynamic
> development of perezhivanie.
>
> In the youngest child, cognition is not yet differentiated from emotion,
> in fact emotion *is* the child's way of understanding and interpreting the
> circumstances. Completely dependent on the mother for all needs, the child
> is overcome by the enormity of what is happening. His reaction is one of
> extreme emotion - terror - and somatization - he urinates involuntarily and
> stammers. He loses control of his own body.
>
> LSV writes that the youngest child is "simply overwhelmed by the horror of
> what is happening to him. As a result, he develops attacks of terror,
> enuresis and he develops a stammer, sometimes being unable to speak at all
> as he loses his voice. In other words, the child’s reaction amounts to a
> state of complete depression and helplessness in the face of this
> situation."
>
> The second child illustrates perezhivanie that is more developed. The
> contradiction of the situation becomes an "inner" conflict - an alternation
> between, and combination of, a positive and a negative emotion towards the
> mother. Each of these attitudes is more organized than the breakdown seen
> in the youngest child. Each attitude is still primarily emotional, but it
> is an organized and focused emotion, not a somatic collapse. The child's
> love and fear is each a coherent way of grasping the situation, directed
> towards the mother who is understood first as good, and then as bad. It is,
> however, the combination, the coexistence, of these two emotions that is so
> difficult for the child. He is trapped in a dilemma of approach-avoidance.
> The contradiction in the situation - again, dependence on the mother; her
> failure to meet her children's needs - becomes a personal conflict for the
> child, who cannot yet reconcile it. His cognition alternates between two
> different and incompatible ways of interpreting his mother - she is a
> mother; no, she is a witch. His cognition is more capable than that of his
> younger brother, but it is still secondary to his emotion.
>
> LSV writes that "The second child is developing an extremely agonizing
> condition, what is called a state of inner conflict, which is a condition
> frequently found in certain cases when contrasting emotional attitudes
> towards the mother make their appearance, examples of which we have
> previously been able to observe among one of our children and which, you
> may remember, we have called an ambivalent attitude. On the one hand, from
> the child’s point of view, the mother is an object of painful attachment,
> and on the other, she represents a source of all kinds of terrors and
> terrible emotional experiences [perezhivanija] for the child. The German
> authors call this kind of emotional complex which the child is experiencing
> a Mutter-Hexekomplex, or ‘a mother-witch complex’, when love for the mother
> and terror of the witch coexist.
>
> "The second child was brought to us with this kind of deeply pronounced
> conflict and a sharply colliding internal contradiction expressed in a
> simultaneously positive and negative attitude towards the mother, a
> terrible attachment to her and an equally terrible hate for her, combined
> with terribly contradictory behaviour. He asked to be sent home
> immediately, but expressed terror when the subject of his going home was
> brought up."
>
> In contrast, the oldest child is able to view the situation with more
> detachment, because he is less dependent. His emotion of one of pity: of
> sorrow and compassion, not of love and fear. Sorrow and compassion can
> coexist; they do not contradict one another. He views his mother not as a
> bad person, a witch, but as a sick person, someone who is ill, or weak. She
> acts badly, but this does not mean that she is a bad person. This, then,
> means that he knows what to do: he has "a special role," with a "duty" to
> take care of both his mother and his younger sibling.
>
> Here, emotion has become subordinated to cognition. The oldest child has a
> single, coherent way of interpreting his mother - she is ill. His emotions
> follow from that cognition, rather than the other way round.
>
> LSV writes that the oldest child "understood that their mother was ill and
> he pitied her.... And he had a special role. He must calm his mother down,
> make certain that she is prevented from harming the little ones and comfort
> them. Quite simply, he has become the senior member of the family, the only
> one whose duty it was to look after everyone else".
>
> In short, LV illustrates the relationship between emotion and cognition in
> each of these three children, and so shows how that relationship changes
> with age.
>
> Martin
>
> The youngest child is probably a toddler, the second a preschooler, and
> the oldest a school-aged child.
> On Oct 13, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Robyn Babaeff <robyn.babaeff@monash.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Just thinking out loud here!!!!, but could the dialectic involving
> > perezhivanie be an internal one between the affective-cognitive
> connection?
> > As social mediation occurs cognitive conceptualising moves into a
> different
> > realm, but perhaps does not sync with the internal affective position of
> > the moment in time.  This could also occur vice-versa where there is
> > emotive movement but the thinking is opposing the feeling. Then as the
> > cognitive-affective sync - the overall transformation occurs from the
> > internal crisis of disconnected affective-cognitive.  As the
> connectedness
> > takes place the growth/change develops???? And in turn
> > motive/action/subjective situating is in transforming motion.
> >
> > On 13 October 2014 22:12, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Which is  a useful reminder that the same is true of any and every word,
> >> but to differing degrees. We may feel that we are all operating with the
> >> same meaning (znachenie) when we use a word in a context like this
> >> discussion but each of us 'means' something different by it because we
> each
> >> have our own  sense (smysl) of its significance (which includes our
> >> awareness of how it is fought over, what sort of people can be expected
> to
> >> use it more or less as we do,  how it may annoy or mislead some people,
> >> etc.). To say we speak the 'same' language can only ever be an
> >> approximation. As I see it, this is why meaning must be negotiated in
> >> discussion rather than asserted by proclamation - we get closer to
> >> understanding how a particular person uses particular words when we get
> to
> >> know that person as a person and that involves much more than just
> batting
> >> words to and fro!
> >>
> >> Rod
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
> >> on behalf of Patrick Jaki [patrick.jaki@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: 13 October 2014 12:00
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?
> >>
> >> Does perezhivanie have a direct equivalent translation in English?  Is
> this
> >> not part of the problem that a word in its original language, in this
> case
> >> Russian, cannot be translated directly into other languages, which adds
> >> onto our problem of making sense and meaning of it.
> >>
> >> On 13 October 2014 10:57, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andy,
> >>>
> >>> I agree that it's an example and illustration that cannot capture
> >>> everything.
> >>>
> >>> But I think you've got the chemistry wrong! If I remember my college
> >>> chemistry correctly, H2O isn't a combination of H+ and OH-, because
> that
> >>> would imply an asymmetry that does not in fact exist. Oxygen is
> strongly
> >>> electronegative, meaning it draws electrons from the hydrogen atoms,
> >>> leading to a bond between an O+ ion and two H- ions.  This has the
> >>> consequence that the water molecule a dipole, which leads to hydrogen
> >>> bonding between water molecules, the result of which is that water is a
> >>> liquid at room temperature while other hydrides formed from elements
> that
> >>> are close to oxygen in the periodic table are gases.
> >>>
> >>> So, yes, there are tensions and contradictions in the *formation* of
> >>> water. My point was that once formed, there are no contradictions
> driving
> >>> further development. That's not entirely true; water does partially
> >>> dissociate, into H3O+ and OH-. This means that a body of water is
> >> actually
> >>> in constant change, creating and breaking hydrogen bonds, and
> >> dissociating
> >>> and reassociating. A dynamic stasis, if you like. But it doesn't
> develop
> >>> further.
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 11:51 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Martin, I think it is nothing more than the limitations of a metaphor
> -
> >>> it can only illustrate one aspect of the target. In this case it is
> >> simply
> >>> saying that a quantity of water is just thousands H2O molecules, and
> >>> nothing else. No addition is required to manifest all the properties of
> >>> water.
> >>>>
> >>>> You would have to be a chemist to know the forces that bind the H and
> >> OH
> >>> together and how they can be separated, H containing a positive charge
> >> and
> >>> OH containing a negative charge - a good old positive/negative
> >>> contradiction. All chemicals with the H ion are acids and all chemicals
> >>> with the OH ion are alkali, but water is both acid and base and
> therefore
> >>> neither. *If you want* the water molecule is a tangle of contradictions
> >> and
> >>> transformations, along with Carbon, the foundation of the chemistry of
> >>> life. :)
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin John Packer wrote:
> >>>>> Good question, Mike!  What you're pointing out is that LSV's own
> >>> example doesn't quite do justice to his analysis in T&L.  Water is not
> a
> >>> dynamic system: once hydrogen bonds with oxygen the process stops:
> water
> >> is
> >>> a stable molecule. He should have picked an example in which an
> internal
> >>> tension or clash of some kind provides a continual motor for change.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In somewhat the same way, I'm trying to figure out how a triangle is
> >>> dynamic. It's one of the most stable geometric shapes.  :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Martin
> >>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:26 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Martin. What is the contradiction between hydrogen and oxygen such
> >>> that two
> >>>>>> atoms of hydrogen combined with one atom of oxygen give rise to
> water
> >>> with
> >>>>>> its distinctive qualities? Knowing that should help people to rise
> to
> >>> the
> >>>>>> concrete for their own cases.
> >>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Martin John Packer <
> >>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>     Well, if it works for you, Helena..!  :)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Clearly Yrjo does claim that the triangle represents a dynamic
> >> system
> >>> with
> >>>>>>> contradictions. I'm still reading the chapter that Mike linked to,
> >>> and I
> >>>>>>> already some questions. But I'll wait until I read it all before
> >>> posting.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Helena Worthen <
> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On the contrary.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To me, that very affordance is one of the great things about
> >> activity
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> theory and the activity system as a unit of analysis. A very simple
> >>> example
> >>>>>>> is that if you change something in the norms/customs/laws/history
> >>> corner of
> >>>>>>> the triangle (like win a court case that gives you a stronger
> >> footing
> >>> in
> >>>>>>> bargaining), then your tools also change. Another: if by bringing
> >> new
> >>>>>>> members into the community (the base of the triangle) out of which
> >>> division
> >>>>>>> of labor raises the subjects, you may find yourself with a
> >> leadership
> >>> team
> >>>>>>> that is not all white, or not all primarily English-speaking, which
> >>> in turn
> >>>>>>> will change what tools/resources you have and may, if you're lucky
> >> and
> >>>>>>> quick, change your history.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Helena Worthen
> >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Martin John Packer wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And what's neat about this way of thinking is that it implies
> >> that,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> once one understands the relationships among the components, one
> can
> >>> bring
> >>>>>>> about changes in one component in the totality by acting on
> >> *another*
> >>>>>>> component of the totality.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The activity system triangle does not suggest to me this type of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> relationship among components. Instead, it seems to represent
> >>> elements that
> >>>>>>> are only accidentally brought together.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Martin John Packer <
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Seems to me the problem in many research projects is that the
> >>> question
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> is not formulated in an appropriate way. LSV was exploring a method
> >> of
> >>>>>>> analysis that seeks to understand the relationship among components
> >>> in a
> >>>>>>> complex totality. Not the causal influence of one factor on
> another,
> >>> which
> >>>>>>> is often how students frame their research interest. And this means
> >>> that
> >>>>>>> the unit of analysis has to represent, exemplify, this
> relationship.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Helena Worthen <
> >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> As someone who uses the concept of "unit of analysis" in a very
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> down-to-earth, quick and dirty, applied way to shape collective
> >>> responses
> >>>>>>> to a crisis in a labor and employment relationships (like, when a
> >> rule
> >>>>>>> changes creates difficulties for workers), I would agree with Andy:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> First comes the story, the details, the experiences. The
> >> question
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> lying behind the telling of the stories is, "What are we going to
> >>> do?" The
> >>>>>>> unit of analysis gets defined by the purpose we are trying to
> >>> accomplish.
> >>>>>>> Are we trying to get the employer to back off temporarily? Are we
> >>> trying
> >>>>>>> get the rule changed? Example:  In a big hospital system in
> Chicago,
> >>>>>>> clerical workers were no longer allowed to leave an "I'm going to
> be
> >>> late
> >>>>>>> to work today" or "I have to stay home with my sick kid today and
> >>> will miss
> >>>>>>> work" message on the answering machines of their supervisors. We're
> >>> talking
> >>>>>>> about a workforce with hundreds of employees, most of them middle
> >> aged
> >>>>>>> minority women -- with grandchildren and extended families to be
> >>>>>>> responsible for.  Not being allowed to leave a message on a
> machine,
> >>> but
> >>>>>>> being required to actually speak to a supervisor in person who
> would
> >>> then
> >>>>>>> keep a record of the call, was a problem because supervisors were
> >>> often
> >>>>>>> away from their desks and the whole phone system was unreliable.
> >>> Also, a
> >>>>>>> lot of workers didn't have cell phones at the time this was
> >> happening
> >>>>>>> (2004) and pay phones are few and far between, so if someone it out
> >>> buying
> >>>>>>> more asthma inhalers for a grandkid, making a phone call is not
> >> easy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So, exactly what is the purpose that we're trying to
> accomplish,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> here?  To repeal the rule? To fix the phone system?  To educate
> >>> members of
> >>>>>>> the union and other others about how to respond collectively to
> >>> something
> >>>>>>> that only affects some of them? To make a profound change in
> society
> >>> so
> >>>>>>> that middle-aged women are not the primary caretakers of an
> extended
> >>>>>>> family?  Pick one. Once you've picked one (hopefully, one that you
> >> can
> >>>>>>> carry out) you can define the unit of analysis and then reviewing
> >> the
> >>> whole
> >>>>>>> Engestrom triangle and evaluating your strategy becomes, as Andy
> >>> says,  a
> >>>>>>> matter of solving puzzles.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> From the employer point of view, asking workers to actually
> >>> speak to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> a live supervisor makes a certain sense. That's why we talk about
> >>> activity
> >>>>>>> system(s), not just one activity system. But they are often in
> >>> conflict
> >>>>>>> with each other, which adds to the drama.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is the data in your study being gathered with some purpose in
> >>> mind?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is the purpose the purpose of the children, the purpose of the
> >> class,
> >>> or
> >>>>>>> the purpose of the PhdD program?  To me, what would be most
> >>> interesting
> >>>>>>> would be a comparison between the unit of analysis (purposes of
> >>> children)
> >>>>>>> and unit of analysis (purpose of classroom). I'll bet they're not
> >>> identical.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen
> >>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Katerina Plakitsi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with
> >> an
> >>>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Patrick Jaki*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *P. O Box 505 WitsJohannesburg2050South Africa*
> >> ________________________________
> >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> >>
> >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
> for
> >> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> >> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on
> it.
> >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> >> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> accepts
> >> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
> emails
> >> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> responsibility
> >> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> >> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
> accompanied
> >> by an official order form.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Robyn Babaeff*
>
>
>


-- 
*Robyn Babaeff*