Re: chapter 5

From: Judith Diamondstone (diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 06:30:10 PDT


Katherine? diane? Nate what do you think? Yrjo? Anyone....?

Judy

At 11:30 PM 6/4/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Katherine, diane, as I understood it, the hard part of developmental
>research is the first part -- creating the conditions under which
>participants in an activity are motivated in some major way to radically
>change the way they do things. That would require familiarity w/ and trust
>of the external researcher whose actions bring to the surface the Big
>Contradiction that explains the prevailing cycles of activity & the
>different tensions/problems that everyone sees; and yes, diane, the
>duration of the project and number of analyses performed and shared seem
>central to this stage-setting.
>
>My questions concern the stage-setting steps of the process, but I agree
>the springboard metaphor has potential as the moment where
>individual/collective terms seem least to be in concert and most in need to
>be concerted.
>
>But IF the stage were effectively set, then springing towards a better
>understanding rather than out of the playing field seems probable.
>
>As for the meta-discourse, even if the language is introduced by the
>researchers who are outsiders, language that helps one to see is generally
>seen by users as valuable.... Once the stage is set, practicability quickly
>becomes the secondary condition under which the system moves forward in the
>new ways.... Just a thought.
>
>
>
>At 06:58 AM 6/4/01 -0600, you wrote:
>>judy's comments on ch5 include
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>if, as you note, the practical-empirical research practice is dominant in
>>social science activity, (SIGH), then - it would seem - looking at the
>>most useful kinds of research in this particular realm has to include the
>>value of longitudinal research: the short-term in-and-out
>>'wham-bam-thank-you-research-subject' approach produces absolutely nothing
>>in terms of progress or relevance for education: longitudinal projects, on
>>the other hand, have the opportunity to
>>participate in the historical process of activity, n'est pas? relying on
>>many kinds of analysis over a longer period of time, it seems to me, makes
>>far more sense to the production of useful information in education or
>>health care,
>>- certainly, this is the case when seeking valuable research findings -
>>more researchers participating for longer periods of time would be a
>>useful application of this particular CH-AT approach, perhaps? it doesn't
>>strike me as a "method" that is easily reduced to the short-term
>>solo-researcher activity.
>>perhaps what needs to change here is the researchers' approaches to
>>conducting research activity. ?? perhaps? or is it intolerable to think
>>that many academics can work together in a large research project?
>>
>>you wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>>and
>>>
>>>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 perhaps, if indeed "
>>>the aim is not a detached analysis by the
>>
>>>researcher but the involved recognition by the participants of the
>>
>>>secondary contradiction within their activity
>>..."
>>
>>then this: "
>>>What I find troubling/ confusing is that so much depends on the external
>>
>>>analyst, including the development of a meta-discourse.
>>" might be challenged by the involved recognition of the participants?
>>doesn't this part of the activity provide the language/meanings that are
>>cultivated in the process of recognition? might not this language form the
>>basis of the research activity, in terms of what is happening - not to
>>impose interpretations but to assume the reflections of the participants
>>are the basis of the activity's meaning and significance?
>>
>>perhaps the development of a meta-discourse is a concern of the
>>researcher, but not specifically constructing the activity that is being
>>wondered about? meta-discourses can be provided as appendices,
>>attachments, but don't specifically have to structure the meaning
>>expressed by the activity's participants? is that possible? to
>>differentiate the "researcher-activity" as a relation with university
>>traditions,
>>and the understandings sought in the 'activity-activity' as something
>>distinct from researcher-university structures?
>>
>>again, researchers working together have a greater opportunity to
>>construct the connections required here without contorting what might yet
>>be learned - that is, surely the researcher experiences a process of
>>expansion, in order to understand what the activity is revealing -
>>
>>as you note, the research-activity is, itself, an historical activity that
>>connects with the activity being "studied" or observed - including this in
>>the analysis might even be a revelation to research of this kind, instead
>>of a further barricade of faux-scientific resistance...
>>
>>good questions there judith.
>>thanks for the ideas and comments.
>>diane
>>
>>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:13 PDT