I apologize Mike, I did indeed mean unit of analysis, thank you for keeping me in check. My behavioral roots run deep.
Mike Cole <lchcmike who-is-at gmail.com>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
07/06/2005 06:28 AM MST
Please respond to mcole
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Re: [xmca] LCA-- transparency
Do you mean unit of ANALYSIS Eric? Or did I miss a discussion about units of measurement?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:00:55 PDT
mike
On 7/6/05, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
Ruqaiya;
I believe your question harkens back to the conversation regarding "unit of measure" for Activity Theory. There is not the clear and concise word attached to the specificity of what is being measured and of course as I have stated before there may not ever be this unique and distinct word available.
Pertaining to the new employee at a new job example; there will be actions that will be done without a prespecified goal and ther will be activity that revolves around a specific job goal. Some of the tools used will be transparent and some will be akward and unfamiliar. I am of the ilk that the activity related to the specific job goal is what is of interest to the social scientist and the automatic actions are merely "white noise" of the study.
whattaya think?
eric
"ruqaiya hasan" < Ruqaiya.Hasan@ling.mq.edu.au>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
07/05/2005 03:42 PM ZE10
Please respond to xmca
To: < xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Re: [xmca] LCA-- transparency
I came into this debate a little late; I am, besides, not familiar with the
language of description for talking of activity. So please bear with me. I
am puzzled.
My puzzlement is as follows: why should we deny the status of activity to
human actions which have become automatised/automatic? A fundamentalist is
most probably acting automatically in denigrating someone who goes against
their belief . But this action can have very far reaching effects on our
social existence. Or is this not one of the important points about activity
as social practice?
Is it not possible to think in terms of actions which implicate/assume an
other e.g. talking, and actions which are limited to the body of the doer
e.g. yawning. Now one interesting thing is that when one goes against the
social modes of performing the latter type (which are essentially
non-mediating) it comes to have a meaning that maybe quite potent eg if I
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca