The Vygotskian vision of methods and instruments was broad-based in its
epistemology, incorporating both inductive and hypothetico-deductive thought
processes, a dialectical model of reasoning, a flexible conception of
experimental design. However, his research was invariably: (a) holistic, (b)
historical, and (c) cultural.
Vygotsky (1987) argued against reducing the phenomenon of interest into
separate elements studied in isolation:
"This mode of analysis can be compared with a chemical analysis of water in
which water is decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen. The essential features of
this form of analysis is that its products are of a different nature than the
whole from which they are derived. The elements lack the characteristics
inherent in the whole and they possess properties that it did not possess.
When one approaches the problem of thinking and speech by decomposing it into
its elements, one adopts the strategy of the man who resorts to the
decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen in his search for a scientific
explanation of the characteristics of water, its capacity to extinguish fire
.... This man will discover, to his chagrin, that hydrogen burns and oxygen
sustains combustion. He will never succeed in explaining the characteristics
of the whole by analyzing the characteristics of its elements." (Vol. 1, p.
45)
Vygotsky insisted on the dialectical study of what he called "units" of
activity containing all the basic characteristics of the whole:
"A psychology that decomposes verbal thinking into its elements in an attempt
to explain its characteristics will search in vain for the unity that is
characteristic of the whole. These characteristics are inherent in the
phenomenon only as a unified whole. Therefore, when the whole is analyzed into
its elements, these characteristics evaporate. In his attempt to reconstruct
these characteristics, the investigator is left with no alternative but to
search for external, mechanical forces of interaction between elements." (Vol.
1, p. 45)
The unity of analysis, then, must be the psychological activity in all its
complexity (e.g., Barker's "behavior setting" redefined in cultural terms a la
Bronfenbrenner's "microcosm")), not in isolation. The quotes are taken from
the "Collected Works" (Vol. 1-6), by R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds., N. Minick,
Trans.) , New York: Plenum.
Many use the term "Transactionalism" in lieu of "Contextualis." I believe
there is an excellent description of what these two interchangeable words mean
in Prof. Urs Fuhrer's "Cultivating Minds," (starting on p. 71).
Contextualism/Transactionalism is a paradigm that adopts the "historical
event" as metaphore (confluence of people, place, and time), and which is in
opposition to other paradigms such as Mechanistic or Organismic. The latter
conceptualize that person and environment are separate entities and thus can
be studied separately. Contextualism is the paradigm embraced by most
qualitative researchers. Contextualism maintains that observers are--like the
participants they observe-- aspects of the whole. Therefore, objectivity, in
the sense given by the positivistic/mechanistic/organismic paradigm, is
impossible.
Doris.