Chapter 5 begins with Scribner's discussion of V's "uses of history" to set
up the cornerstone of Cul-His method: the historical analysis of structural
change in whatever object of concern; and to describe its limitations --
first, the need for empirical research on particular systems of activity
(the U.S. tradition of psychology helps to fill that gap in the development
of CH psychology); second, the need to study, in addition to processes of
"interiorization" through which sociocultural knowledge is acquired by
individuals, the cycles of expansion whereby new systems of activity are
created (from ch. 4, whereby the transition is made from problem-solving at
the level of individual action to a cycle of collective learning in
'orchestrated polyphony'). History is "both interiorization and expansion";
The LBE project is to use the model of an historical cycle of expansion
(which I must take on faith as such) as an instrument for 'developmental
research'.
The rest of the chapter presents the methods of developmental research,
starting first with 'in-dwelling' among participants in an activity system,
acquiring their perspectives in order to identify the primary contradiction
underlying the problems as seen by them. This is followed by delineating
the acgtivity system.
Analysis is 3-pronged -- 1. object-historical analysis = identifying phases
of development & "uncovering" secondary contradictions. But note that the
analysis begins by identifying transformations of the object, and the
object itself is understood as a system of activity, both a "component"
within the "central activity" and at the same time somewhat independent of
it.
I should say that the explanation of methods remains for me abstract and
vague; I haven't tested them against the AT-based case studies I've read,
and I have no practical experience in developmental research to pin it to,
so I'm just summarizing most of this.
Anyway, the next dimension of analysis is "theory-historical" -- this makes
sense to me: identifying the mediating artifacts of the system, the
conceptual instruments, the tacit and explicit theories; -- then it slips
past what I know into delineating "the instrument-producing activities
behind those theories." The goal is to describe the formation of secondary
contradictions related to the secondary instruments of the different phases
of activity.
The 3rd dimension of analysis is "actual-empirical" performed on the models
"professed and actually used" by the participants -- YE recommends
analyzing each at all three levels of AT and as *declarative conceptions;
*procedural performances; *social discourses; *communicational networks;
and *organizational structures. That's a lot of analysis. And it should be
done "with the help" of historical analysis anbd the 'five general
historical models" that I haven't yet mentioned :)
prototypes; classificatory models; procedural models; systemic models; germ
cell models.
An important result of the analyses is or should be the definition of an
"object-unit" in any developmental phase. The 'object unit" is the slice of
the object that is handled by the subject at particular moments; tracing
the object-unit shows how the object is transformed from raw material to
product and it foregrounds the relations of individual actions to the whole
activity. But most important, the aim is not a detached analysis by the
researcher but the involved recognition by the participants of the
secondary contradiction within their activity. It is to 'midwife' / bring
about a double bind at the level of the activity system. This I see as the
key to LBE, and a very tricky key it seems to me.
After this, I would think, it's all downhill, but YE describes the next
methodological step as the most "dramatic". The conditions are set up for
the collective development of new instruments. This cycle of developmental
research is performed in 3 steps: 1) find a springboard 2) formulate
instrumental models, and 3) construct a microcosm for testing the new
instruments.
Finding a springboard means constructing a notational system for
representing the overall structure and dynamics of the contradictry
situation in a way that is both holistic and finely analyzed. Take a breath
here. YE gets to this point through a discussion of Altshuller, which
someone else can present if wanted. The point is that participants in the
system ARE PROVIDED a way of talking about what is going on, a
meta-discourse informed by the object-historical/ theory-historical/ and
actual-empirical analyses. They use the meta-discourse to get to a
springboard, which is a reveletory moment, a creative insight, or some such
thing, which might actually occur retrospectively, after the formulation of
a new model. The springboard can bounce the individual participant
backwards toward a synthetic view of the developmental phase they have just
completed.
So the analysis leads to 'a sketchy hypotehtic model' of the next
developmental phase. To elaborate it is to elaborate each constituent
element of the activity system into new versions, starting with the object
or the instrument of activity: to reconceptualize the objedct (or the
instrument), one must reconceptualize the subject, the community, etc. The
elaborated, final models are developed collectively.
The final step in this phase of developmental research is to form a
microcosm, which means to form a social unit based on intersubjectivity at
the level of the collective, or "reflective communication" [at the level
of action, YE proposes, intersubjectivity is goal-oriented 'cooperation';
at the level of operation, it's mere 'coordination' of actions] In
reflective communication, the most 'advanced' form of intersubjectivity,
the focus of reflection and self-regulation is the system as a whole. In
every cycle of learning activity the expansive transition takes learning
from the individual to the collective level.
There are 2 more phases to go -- the new instruments have to be applied and
then the whole process has to be reported. Katherine can take it from here.
The project, as stated in the last paragraph of the chapter, is to make
'cycles of expansive transition collectively mastered journeys through
zones of proximal development... it aims at furnishing people with tertiary
and secondary instruments necessary for the mastery of qualitative
transformations of their activity systems."
What I find exciting about the project is that it begins with existing
systems of activity, in the realm of the everyday, and it introduces what
one might call instruments for disturbing the status quo by 'uncovering'
internal contradictions, and it seems (I may be wrong) to depend on a kind
of reflexivity that isn't 'within' an individual but among individuals.
What I find troubling/ confusing is that so much depends on the external
analyst, including the development of a meta-discourse. Politically, I
would prefer to imagine the analysis and development of modeling tools as
more 'bottom up' or at least more collaborative. I am also wary of claims
for 'reflective communication' at the level of activity. My guess is that
the 'intersubjectivity' supposedly realized here would disintegrate under a
semiotic analysis. BUt I am imposing an external interpretation of it onto
the project; it's hard for me to imagine concretely, in any detail, the
specific methodological steps.
Judy
At 09:54 AM 6/2/01 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Having reached a small gap in an otherwise overly packed set obligations,
>I tried going back this morning to see where the discussion of LBD 4 stood.
>But as luck would have it it, while the April archive is posted on lchc.ucsd.
>edu/xmca, May is not, and somehow the discussion "complexed" into Vygotsky's
>"crisis."
>
>I missed the transition. And any event, I am aware that our local academic
>year is coming to an end, Yrjo returns to the land of cell phones and the
>midnight sun, and our allotted time for reading LBE comes to an end.
>
>Reading through 4e (without recourse to earlier posts) I am impressed by the
>way it provides a lot pointers to what it means to talk about CHAT as an
>interdisciplinary undertaking, if not a new discipline (with lots of
pointers to its methodology).
>
>So, for example, I re-enjoyed the discussion of phenomenology and
>the delineation of the activity system which, retrospectively, I
>can see underpinning a lot of the work that has led to the "change
>lab" methodology which Yrjo and his colleagues curently use. And
>the connection of that method to Vygotsky's methodology of "dual
>stimulation" is strongly brought to mind. I have not read Altshuller,
>but found the discussion of his strategy for ferreting out contradictions
>consistent with the forms of participant observation that a number of
>us locally engage in. And Yrjo'
>s comment that " A genuine expansive cycle inevitably produces not
>only civilization (he is referring here to the 7 brother's story)
>but an ingredient of wildness" also fits the phenomenology of my
>recent experiences.
>
>His conclusion also resonates strongly for me:
>
>Reporting and assessing outcomes of expansive research is not easy.
>The voyage through the zone of proximal development is best followed
>and recorded by employing a set of multiple methods, ranging from
>phenomenological and anthropological observation of historical
>analysis of performances, conceptions and discourse practices. The
>sheer amount and variety of data collected make new types of report
>ing necessary.
>
>
>Amen to that. Hopefully members of this list will provide each other
>with positive examples of how these challenges can be met.
>
>Chapter 5? Is there a leader lurking in the wings? It seems to offer
>a lot of reprises on recent discussions both within and outside of
>LBE itself.
>mike
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:04 PDT