I guess I am getting tangled in the words, Kevin. There are a number of
related approaches being discussed here.
Lets see what others have to say. Meantime I will practice preparing for
next weeks lectures.
mike
On 1/13/07, Kevin Rocap <Kevin.Rocap@liu.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> I agree, yet think the bridge perhaps needs to be stronger or different
> if we're looking for some situated connectedness among CHAT, action
> research and/or action science, no? Whether we think other methods,
> approaches do it well or not, don't most educational and social science
> approaches somethow privilege practice for testing and/or developing
> theory? (again, with my caveat that we may not think they all do it
> well). Grounded Theory comes to mind as a methodology. Various
> qualitative/ethnographic approaches seek to privilege practice, no? And
> even the so-called "scientifically-based research" espouses looking for
> practice-based evidence and practice-based outcomes as the only ground
> on which to draw conclusions of effectiveness and efficacy. Yet, these
> approaches often start from an "outsiders" perspective on a given
> practice or set of practices - which I think is the key distinction from
> participatory and/or action research (and, at times, CHAT). Or, what am
> I missing? Don't these other approaches also privilege practice at some
> level as the test of theory?
>
> In Peace,
> K.
>
> Mike Cole wrote:
> > I think the intrinsic connection between the two -- variously related--
> > traditions is the chat
> > principle that the iron test of theory is in practice, Kevin. That
> > linkage
> > can be made in various
> > ways, of course, and is. But it provides a natural bridge.
> > mike
> >
> > On 1/13/07, Kevin Rocap <Kevin.Rocap@liu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear friends,
> >>
> >> Hi! A brief comment on some of Michael's good remarks and on Mike's,
> >> below...
> >>
> >> Michael Glassman wrote:
> >> > I don't know an enormous amount about action research, but I do think
> >> that Argylis and Schon were very much inspired by Dewey and the idea of
> >> experiential learning. ... - making the argument that those actually
> >> engaged in the problem solving have a much better understanding of the
> >> relationship between Argylis and Schon at least seem to be working
> >> from the
> >> same perspective - at least from what I can see - that members of an
> >> organization have a better understanding of the problem solving than
> any
> >> outsiders, and therefore a better chance of changing themselves when
> >> researching how they actually do solve problems.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You may be right about the inspiration Michael. From my, admittedly
> >> now-a-bit-dated experience with Argyris's work, the actual evaluation,
> >> assessment and change process involved in learning to distinguish
> >> espoused theories from theories-in-use and to move from Model I to
> Model
> >> II behavior relies heavily on external consultants (that's what Chris
> >> was trying to train us to be ;-)).
> >>
> >> Granted the success of the change process ideally entails the
> >> organizational participants themselves becoming better at openly
> >> monitoring, questioning and responding to their own and each others'
> own
> >> practices from within an action science framework (note action science
> >> is not self-identical with action research, though part of what we're
> >> doing here, I believe, is trying to instructively cull out the
> >> similarities/differences, if any).
> >>
> >> At that point of change in the consulting process, it is interesting to
> >> consider whether folks have simply changed their practices and so are
> >> not really engaged in "research" per se, just in new behaviors. But
> >> then I guess that brings us around to reflective practice, action
> >> science and learning organizations in general. If one is an actively
> >> participating member of a "learning organization" responsible for
> >> ongoing and continuous inquiry, reflection and change is that
> >> participation de facto a type of action research? Perhaps that leads
> us
> >> to the cultural-historical pathway and associations with "research"
> with
> >> its perhaps dominantly academic and/or scientific and/or social science
> >> activity trajectories and baggage, no? How important is it to put
> >> specific boundaries around research practice? And what should those
> >> be? Would those include defining as research ongoing participation in
> >> learning organizations?
> >>
> >> Regarding Mike's remarks on CHAT being useful for and sometimes
> utilized
> >> in action research. Definitely, I agree - I included a bullet about
> the
> >> usefulness of CHAT for action research for that reason (and your point
> >> Mike that it not only lends itself to action research but that it has
> >> been explicitly used for action research is a good one). My only point
> >> is that I don't think there is anything to suggest that making use of a
> >> CHAT framework equals or automatically implies being engaged in action
> >> research. CHAT has been used plenty to engage in external research of
> >> others' activities and actions, no? And your comment Mike seemed to me
> >> even a bit more nuanced in that by looking through the lens of activity
> >> theory and related CHAT theories and concepts you could simultaneously
> >> be studying activity outside of your own practice AND your own practice
> >> as a researcher (if I'm not reading into your comment too much). This
> >> would be yet another combination/hybrid kind of research, imho.
> >>
> >> In Peace,
> >> K.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:32 PST