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

[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?



Please excuse me for this mail. Obviously, it wasn't intended to list...
Best regards 
 
Maria
 
> From: m_ianeva@hotmail.com
> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:18:15 +0000
> Subject: [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*
> > 
> > 
>