Jim
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Eugene Matusov wrote:
> Hi Bill, Jim, and everybody--
>
> I just want to provide a brief comment about Vygotsky's example of water as
> a unit of analysis. If I remember it correctly, Vygotsky says that molecule
> is the smallest unit analysis of water. By saying that he did not mean, in
> my view, to say that it is useless to study atoms out of which molecule of
> water consists of. However, one shouldn't be surprised when elements (i.e.,
> H and O atoms) do not react at all like water.
>
> My personal objection to Vygotsky/Hegel's almost positivistic reasoning is
> that unit of analysis is relative to the purpose of the analysis rather than
> simply rooted in the phenomenon or approach. In my view, there is no such
> thing as "right" or "wrong" unit of analysis in general. Like there is no
> "right" or "wrong" move in chess in general. Only in the context of
> research purpose, some choices become better than other against values and
> priorities embraced by the researcher.
>
> I do not think that "individual" is a wrong unit of analysis per se
> especially if your research goal to study the individual is unique (e.g.,
> biography). However, in my view, individual is a wrong unit of analysis (in
> Vygotsky's/Hegel's terms) when researcher's goal is to understand why
> minority kids fail in school. Activity system can be more appropriate unit
> of analysis in this case.
>
> In my view, the specificity of the unit of analysis should not be limited
> only by research goals but also by practical goals of the researcher (e.g.,
> getting grant, improving schools), discourse of the academic and
> non-academic communities, and so on. I think such construct as "unit of
> analysis" has no less practice-based ecology than any other human
> constructs.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Wertsch [mailto:jwertsch@artsci.wustl.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 12:09 PM
> > To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: Re: reduction, isolation, action
> >
> >
> > This is an interesting distinction between isolationism and reductionism.
> > Perhaps we should accept the former while continuing to resist the latter?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Bill Barowy wrote:
> >
> > > John's insights into emergent properties and dynamics of the
> > complex system
> > > in relation to 'unit of analysis' helped me gather enough
> > courage to look
> > > at chapter 2 of Mind as Action. My reaction to what I am
> > finding there is
> > > delight with some reconciliation of my own struggles and further
> > > understanding of action as the unit of analysis.
> > >
> > > At first read, the quote by Vygotsky about water being irreducible to
> > > hydrogen and oxygen struck a sour note with me. I wanted to
> > edit the last
> > > line to read 'He will never succeed in explaining the characteristics of
> > > the whole by [only] analyzing the characteristics of its elements."
> > > because of course it helps to know that water is composed of
> > hydrogen and
> > > oxygen and this does make all the difference in the world - it
> > is water not
> > > carbon dioxide for example, which is what you would get if you combined
> > > carbon and oxygen. I wanted to add "and he would not succeed unless he
> > > also analyzes its elements", but who am i to criticize publically and
> > > sociall the words of Vygotsky or Wertsch? Especially because
> > one author is
> > > present?
> > >
> > > Well, semiosis be damned unless I can. :-) Vygotsky most
> > likely did not
> > > know of the process of molecular 'building up' - starting with a
> > > description of isolated atoms and watching their structures gradually
> > > transform, in response to each other, as one (analytically) brings them
> > > together, until finally they make up each other as the
> > molecule, with a new
> > > structure and continuous degrees of difference in structure, from those
> > > *practically* isolable to individual atoms and those completely
> > considered
> > > molecule and indivisible.
> > >
> > > Jim introduces 'isolation' which allows the process I am interested in
> > > preserving, and does not carry the end-of-the-line sense that
> > 'reduction'
> > > does. Isolation becomes viable because it is like what Catalina Laserna
> > > calls 'zooming in' - you focus more tightly for a while, always with the
> > > perspective in mind that this is a piece of a bigger picture. So with
> > > this, I will continue to think about the 'building up' of
> > complex dynamics,
> > > tentatively termed action, in the modeling I am doing, and must get back
> > > to, and also revisit another method, thought-experiment, which
> > may be also
> > > isolationist in nature, I now realize, not reductionist.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
> > > Technology in Education
> > > Lesley College, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
> > > Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
> > > http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
> > > _______________________
> > > "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart
> > from yourself
> > > and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
> > > [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>