Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to XMCA theoreticaland methodological interests

From: Wolff-Michael Roth (
Date: Sun Jan 21 2007 - 09:52:20 PST

Hi Michael,
the problem with "immediate problems" is that these are concrete
expressions of issues at a very different level. Addressing the
immediate problem is like taking aspirin when you hurt somewhere.
What this solution to your immediate problem does not provide you
with is an understanding of the causes of headache, so that taking
aspirin is only patching some deeper problem---the causes, which are
of a very different nature, could be psychological, psychosomatic,
physiological, etc.
Historical analysis of the system as a whole is one way of getting at
the determinants---causes---of the immediate problems and how these
are mediated by the system as a whole. There are neat analyses by
Klaus Holzkamp or Ole Dreier that show why in counseling, for
example, you need to do more than treat immediate causes.

On 21-Jan-07, at 9:15 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:

Had a chance to take a look at both Cathrene's chapters and the paper
by Anne Edwards. It is really interesting, good work. I am left
with an initial question. In both cases (and I might be wrong here),
what the authors were saying that CHAT (or SCRAT) have to offer
action research is a historical perspective, which, from what I am
reading, is not really part of Action research. The question this
brings to mind is, "Is this a good thing?" Do we naturally take
historical analysis as a good when we are attempting to deal with
immediate problems, and to sort of break the yoke the the larger
cultural foregrounding when attempting to deal with immediate
problems, or does it in some way "stack the deck" and force a more
culturally historical acceptable solution to the problem. It's a
problem I really struggle with. One thing that Cathrene's chapters
really did for me is make me recognize the relationship between micro-
genetic research and action research - because I suppose in the best
of all possible worlds micro-genetic research is action research (or
is it the other way around?)



From: on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 11:32 AM
To:; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to XMCA
theoreticaland methodological interests

Hi all, regarding the question of action research in schools and
CHAT---i.e., the points Anne Edwards article is about---we also had
written many years ago a conceptualization of this form of research
and some variants in an online article that some might find
interesting in this context:

Roth, Wolff-Michael, Lawless, Daniel V. & Tobin, Kenneth (2000,
December). {Coteaching | Cogenerative Dialoguing} as Praxis of
Dialectic Method [47 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(3). Available
e.htm [Date of Access: Month Day, Year]

Cheers, Michael

On 19-Jan-07, at 5:37 PM, Mike Cole wrote:

Two papers have been posted and can now be found at the xmca website:

Catherene's chapters and the article by Anne Edwards.

We will be posting an article from the most recent, exciting, issue
of MCA
shortly. More about
that later since there is slippage in the process.

But the papers for discussion are there. Perhaps
Time for doing some research by taking action and finding them so you
comment, ask questions,
or provide an excuse not to do the dishes!!

Have a nice weekend all.
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:33 PST