[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] discourse and unit



You say Mike: "Perhaps it would be helpful if in talking about units of analysis the subject matter being analyzed always needs to be specified."

This is undoubtedly true. Some people tends to say things like "Vygotsky's unit of analysis was ..." as if it were an attribute of the researcher. A unit of analysis is in fact simply a concrete concept of the subject matter. So a different subject matter has a different unit of analysis, and maybe different researchers will use different units of analysis because they see things from a different point of view. For example, Anna sees social life as mainly though not exclusively discourses (as I read it), so she chooses a Discourse to be the unit of analysis for a social formation. I see social life as activity, so I take a Project as the unit of analysis for a social formation (read "social life" for "social formation" or something as you see fit, but the big picture). Hegel saw social formations as constituted by thought, so he took the unit of analysis for a social formation to be a Concept. A Project, a Concept, a Discourse - all very similar concepts as I (now) see it. They differ only by what is taken as the substance.

Andy

mike cole wrote:
Thanks, Andy, that is helpful.
As Steve's prior note listing LSV ideas about units and our discussions on xmca, and lots of Russian discussions indicate, this term, along with the other central terms we have been discussing, all seem to function as sort of fuzzy
concepts that serve to as analytic devices depending upon
...... depending on what i wonder? Anna S suggests, reasonably, upon "a greater whole." ANL makes it, so it seems,the whole of human life.

Perhaps it would be helpful if in talking about units of analysis the subject matter being analyzed always needs to be specified or matters just wobble around as you suggest with respect to the examples of Mescheryakov, Davydov.....
mike



On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    AN Leontyev occasionally does talk about units, including in this
    piece, which is why I was quite qualified in what I said.
    Leontyev's son said in 2006:

      “Throughout, even within the framework of activity theory itself, an
      ambiguous understanding of the units and levels of activity
      organization can be seen. ... As is well known, A.N. Leontyev does
      not provide an explicit definition of it; as a rule, he puts the
      term “unit” within quotation marks, and in so doing, “determines”
      it. And this is justified: after all, as it applies to his point of
      view, the concept of unit has little applicability to activity,
      action, or operation, since it presumes their /discrete /nature. ...
      In A.N. Leontyev’s conception, the only thing that can be called a
      “unit” in the strict sense is activity (an activity act).” "‘Units’
      and Levels of Activity,"/ Journal of Russian and East European
      Psychology/, vol. 44, no. 3: 30-46, M. E. Sharpe.

    It is not, for me, that ANL didn't have units in his work, but
    that his method is not /based/ on this idea. I think AAL's words
    are not completely correct actually, but it does reflect a problem
    in ANL's work. Operations are amenable to an analysis by units;
    Actions is the domain already dealt with by Vygotsky; Activity
    needs an analysis by units, but I think ANL did not have a clear
    view of what an analysis by units of this domain entailed.

    Andy

    mike cole wrote:

        Andy--

        How do we interpret the following in light of your reply to
        Monica?
        mike
        ------------
        Leontiev defines activity as
        “..the non-additive, molar unit of life for material,
        corporeal subject…. It is the unit of life that is mediated
        by mental reflection. The real function of this unit is to
        orient the subject in the world of objects. In
        other words, activity is not reaction or aggregate of
        reactions, but a system with its own structure, its
        own internal transformations, and its own development.”
        (Leontiev, 1981: p.46)
        In contrast

        On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Andy Blunden
        <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:

           Yes, if I understand you correctly, that is what I was
        driving at.

           Why do I say  "Not many people, even in the history of
        CHAT, do"?

           Well, LSV was very explicit about it and what he meant by unit.
           Everyone recognises that. But AN Leontyev for example does not
           follow this aspect of Vygotsky's method. True "operation" and
           "action" are units, but I don't think his conception of
        "activity"
           follows LSV's method. It could be seen in that way, but I don't
           think ANL himself saw his work as guided by an "analysis by
        units"
           and although we know of 3 units in his work, I don't think
        he uses
           them methodologically as units. Engestrom accepts LSV's unit of
           "artefact-mediated action" but it is kind of sublated into a
           method which hinges around a "root model" of a system of
        activity
           which is not a unit of analysis. Davydov follows LSV's
        method in
           this respect n his method of maths teaching. Meshcheryakov
           developed it in his work teaching the deaf-blind. But
        otherwise,
           very broadly, I think people see it as part of the history
        of CHAT
           and not really relevant to their own work. I might be wrong. I
           haven't done a comprehensive survey on it. But that's the
           impression I get.

           Andy

           Monica Hansen wrote:

               Andy,
               Just so I understand: When you asked Anna Sfard about
        "unit of
               analysis", you were trying to get
               her to make her assumptions explicit about the
        practice/method
               of using the
               "unit of analysis" in psychology as a science.
        Vygotsky's use
               of this term
               is appropriate in the larger discourse of psychology at the
               time, isn't it?
               I wouldn't say a historical accident, but rather as he is
               participating in a
               scientific discourse with logical argument it is likely
        that
               his word choice
               is deliberate. What do you mean by the following statement,
               "Not many
               people, even in the history of CHAT, do"?
               Just following along this very interesting thread.

               Thanks,
               Monica

               -----Original Message-----
               From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
               <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>
               [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
               <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>] On
               Behalf Of Andy Blunden
               Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 12:20 AM
               To: annasfar@math.msu.edu
        <mailto:annasfar@math.msu.edu> <mailto:annasfar@math.msu.edu
        <mailto:annasfar@math.msu.edu>>

               Cc: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
               Subject: Re: [xmca] discourse and unit

               OK, having taken the time to read what you say, you are
        quite
               explicit then. You don't agree with the method of
        analysis by
               units, in the sense that Vygotsky used the term. Which is
               fine. Not many people, even in the history of CHAT, do.

               Andy

               anna sfard wrote:
Andy,
                   You seem to imply a unit must be a part of a greater
                   whole, perhaps even
an invisible part, as is the case for molecules or cells.
                   While I don't see
                   invisibility ("see invisibility"? well, you know what I
                   mean) as a
defining property of unit of analysis, I do believe that being a
                   part of something
                   bigger is a useful characteristic.  The discourses
        I named
                   are all
                   irreducible parts, at least for me, of the greater
        whole
                   which is our
                   communicational activity - our thinking.  The
        discourses I
                   named are
                   irreducible in that when you look at their separate
                   elements (e.g., words
or concepts), the effect is exactly like in the case of
                   looking at single
atoms inside a molecule: you lose the ties/relations to the
                   other atoms and the
                   gestalt is gone.              And now, I'm afraid,
        I must be gone. My immediate
                   non-virtual community
                   makes sounds of being annoyed with my unexpected
        departure
                   (whereas xmca
                   community may be annoyed with my intensive - all too
                   intensive - presence
in these last few days, for which I'm asking its
        forgiveness).

                   anna


                   -----Original Message-----
                   From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
                   <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>
                   [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
                   <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>] On
                   Behalf Of Andy Blunden
                   Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 8:53 AM
                   To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
                   Subject: [xmca] discourse and unit

                   The answer to my question, Anna, is that you just don't
                   see the word
                   "unit". Let's look at the whole of that Vygotsky quote
                   (apologies to
                   David and Martin for using the Minnick translation):

                      "In our view, an entirely different form of
        analysis is
                   fundamental
                      to further development of theories of thinking and
                   speech. This form
                      of analysis relies on the partitioning of the
        complex
                   whole into
                      /units/. In contrast to the term 'element', the
        term 'unit'
                      designates a product of analysis that possesses /all
                   the basic
                      characteristics of the whole/. The unit is a
        vital and
                   irreducible
                      part of the whole. The key to the explanation of the
                   characteristics
                      of water lies not in the investigation of its
        chemical
                   formula but
                      in the investigation of its molecular movements. In
                   precisely the
                      same sense, the living cell is the real unit of
                   biological analysis
                      because it preserves the basic characteristics
        of life
                   that are
                      inherent in the living organism." (Vygotsky 1986)

                   My problem with what you say, Anna, is that I can't see
                   "discourse" as
                   an irreducible part, "cell" or "molecule," to be
                   contrasted with the
                   whole. I always took discourse to be a whole, or a
        Gestalt
                   which, if not
                   a whole , then a holistic element of a wider life which
                   includes
                   discourse as an aspect. But not a unit.

                   Andy
                   anna sfard wrote:
Here is how Vygotsky answers your question, Andy,
                       after stating that
"word meaning [concept] is [his] unit of analysis":
                       "'unit' is a product of analysis that possesses
        *all*
                       the basic
properties of the whole" (T&S, 1987, p. 46, emphasis in the
                       original).
                       And he famously illustrated this definition by
                       speaking about the mistake
                       one makes when using too small a unit of
        analysis and
                       trying to tell
                       properties of water by investigating the
        properties of
                       oxygen and
hydrogen. In my own words, the word "unit", when used in the
                       context of the
expression "unit of analysis" is the smallest aggregate of
                       phenomena I need to
consider in my research to be able to say anything really
                       helpful/useful and
                       trustworthy.
                       I'm not sure what to make of your " historical
                       accident, or a mistake, or
                       simply a trivial thing". Why should unit of
        analysis
                       be any of those?
Could you, please, extend the set of possible choices buy
                       adding, say, a
rational decision (that is, a decision made for an
        articulable
                       reason).
                       Oh,.. now I can see, I think. You don't like the
                       traditional divisions
which I seemed to be making while speaking about
                       mathematical discourse,
                       scientific discourse, political discourse...
        You even
                       asked whether my
unit of analysis is the same thing as "subject
        matter". Ok,
                       so no, i'm talking
                       about *discourses*, which is ontologically quite
                       different than the
                       (underdefined) "subject matter". And why the
                       "disciplinary" division?
                       Because these discourses display the kind of inner
                       cohesiveness (not
                       necessarily in the Halliday's sense of the word
                       cohesiveness) - in their
                       word use, in their routines and meta-rules, in
        visual
                       mediators, in their
                       narratives - that make them stand out as
        obvious units
                       of analysis. Or,
to put it differently, when I start with a word,
        such as
                       "number", and am
                       trying to investigate as much of its uses as
        necessary
                       to see anything of
                       importance, I invariably end up, whether I want
        it or
                       not, with looking
at the whole of formal and informal) numerical
                       *discourse*, in any of its
                       developmental versions.                  Did I
        mange to make myself understandable?
                       Anna
                       PS. Of course, you may go on and ask what I mean by
                       "the whole" of a
                       discourse. The boundaries are blurry, and I don't
                       really mean I am
checking every piece of this rather elusive entity. But
        I do as
                       far as necessary,
                       never excluding in advance anything that may be
        deemed
                       as belonging to a
discourse in question. -----Original Message-----
                       From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
                       <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>] Sent: Saturday, April 23,
                       2011 4:22 AM
                       To: annasfar@math.msu.edu
        <mailto:annasfar@math.msu.edu>
                       <mailto:annasfar@math.msu.edu
        <mailto:annasfar@math.msu.edu>>; eXtended Mind,

                       Culture, Activity
                       Subject: Re: [xmca] activity and reification

                       Anna, no-one took this up, but let me pursue it
                       nonetheless.
                       I said I think we disagreee about what Vygotsky
        meant
                       by "unit of
analysis." You concluded your third message in this exchange:

                          "...to speak about it as the use of word in
                       discourse (not just a
                          single act, Andy; rather, a discursive activity
                       with the word) ...
                          discourse (understood as a specific type of
                       communication) is what
                          may usefully be taken as a unit of analysis in
                       developmental (and,
                          obviously, historical) studies."

                       Leaving all other issues aside (I actually
        agree with
                       most of what you
said in this message in response to Martin), what do you
                       make of the word
"unit" in the term "unit of analysis"? Do you see it as a
                       kind of historical
                       accident, or a mistake, or simply a trivial
        thing? I
                       take it seriously,
you see.

                       Do you see what I am getting at Anna? You seem
        to use
                       the term to mean
                       "subject matter."
                       Andy






-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           *Andy Blunden*
           Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
        <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
<http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
           Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>

           Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
        <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
           <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
        <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
           MIA: http://www.marxists.org

           __________________________________________
           _____
           xmca mailing list
           xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>

           http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Andy Blunden*
    Joint Editor MCA:
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
    <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
    Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
    Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
    <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
    MIA: http://www.marxists.org

    __________________________________________
    _____
    xmca mailing list
    xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca