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

[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?



Za detskite pesnichki :
 
Nezabravimi detski pesnichki (Stefkos Music)
38 zlatni pesnichki za nai malkite (Kanev Music, http://www.kanevmusic.com/ bkanev@abv.bg)
 
> From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:51:41 +0000
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?
> 
> Hi Robyn,
> 
> I think it's important to recognize that the oldest child's understanding of the need to take care of his mother and siblings is not a drive or an impulse, it is, LSV tells us, a "duty" that follows from adopting a specific "role" in the family. Understanding the situation in terms of roles and duties is certainly socially mediated - after all, roles and duties are social, or societal, matters (ontological and deontological respectively, if we want to get technical). The oldest child - presumably attending school - is able to understand that he lives in a world of social institutions, one of which is his family.
> 
> In this chapter LSV does not explore or explain how each kind of perezhivanie transforms into the next, but in his lectures on child development you can find a more detailed account. But here, in what is effectively a cross-sectional comparison of children at different ages (albeit only one at each age), he certainly means to suggest that  earlier forms provide the basis for later forms.
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Oct 13, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Robyn Babaeff <robyn.babaeff@monash.edu> wrote:
> 
> > 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*
> 
>