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

[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?



Martin,

I think it is an excellent analysis of the development of perezhivanie. The oldest child's way of combining
emotion and cognition reminds me of the playwright, Arthur Miller's term "felt knowledge."
Vera

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John Packer
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 7:52 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
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*