[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Unit of Analysis
- To: Alfredo Jornet Gil <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of Analysis
- From: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:11:37 +1000
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAHH++P=Ad48ANv9jZdA3GpWMcUFd1JT0WQNWO6p6_tpc4oL1Lg@mail.gmail.com> <831A54E8-7FE6-4255-96C0-2FED9883F3F8@uniandes.edu.co> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAOEFKJ-wVt3JPHFs4hC63PL2X7rgmt-Nh85SRCsEEZfKSawrAQ@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
Alfredo, by "visceral" I mean it is something you know
through your immediate, bodily and sensuous interaction with
something. In this sense I am with Lakoff and Johnson here
(though not being American I don't see guns as quite so
fundamental to the human condition). Consider what Marx did
when began Capital not from the abstract concept of "value"
but from the action of exchanging commodities . Commodity
exchange is just one form of value, but it is the most
ancient, most visceral, most "real" and most fundamental
form of value - as Marx shows in s. 3 of Chapter 1, v. I.
I have never studied climatology, Alfredo, to the extent of
grasping what their unit of analysis is.
In any social system, including classroom activity, the
micro-unit is an artefact-mediated action and the
macro-units are the activities. That is the basic CHAT
approach. But that is far from the whole picture isn't it?
What chronotope determines classroom activity - are we
training people to be productive workers or are we
participating in social movements or are we engaged in
transforming relations of domination in the classroom or are
we part of a centuries-old struggle to understand and change
the world? The action/activity just gives us one range of
insights, but we might analyse the classroom from different
On 8/09/2017 7:58 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
I am very curious about what "visceral" means here (Andy), and particularly how that relates to the 'interrelations' that David D. is mentioning, and that on the 'perspective of the researcher'.
I was thinking of the Hurricanes going on now as the expressions of a system, one that sustains category 5 hurricanes in *this* particulars ways that are called Irma, José, etc. How the 'visceral' relation may be like when the object is a physical system (a hurricane and the climate system that sustains it), and when it is a social system (e.g., a classroom conflict and the system that sustains it).
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> on behalf of David Dirlam <email@example.com>
Sent: 07 September 2017 19:41
To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of Analysis
The issues that have arisen in this discussion clarify the conception of
what sort of entity a "unit" is. Both and Andy and Martin stress the
importance of the observer. Anyone with some experience should have some
sense of it (Martin's point). But Andy added the notion that experts need
basically to be able to agree reliably on examples of the unit (worded like
the psychological researcher I am, but I'm sure Andy will correct me if I
missed his meaning).
We also need to address two other aspects of units--their classifiability
and the types of relations between them. What makes water not an element,
but a compound, are the relations between the subunits (the chemical bonds
between the elements) as well as those with other molecules of water (how
fast they travel relative to each other), which was David Kellogg's point.
So the analogy to activity is that it is like the molecule, while actions
are like the elements. What is new to this discussion is that the activity
must contain not only actions, but also relationships between them. If we
move up to the biological realm, we find a great increase in the complexity
of the analogy. Bodies are made up of more than cells, and I'm not just
referring to entities like extracellular fluid. The identifiability,
classification, and interrelations between cells and their constituents all
help to make the unit so interesting to science. Likewise, the constituents
of activities are more than actions. Yrjo's triangles illustrate that.
Also, we need to be able to identify an activity, classify activities, and
discern the interrelations between them and their constituents.
I think that is getting us close to David Kellogg's aim of characterizing
the meaning of unit. But glad, like him, to read corrections.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Yes, but I think, Martin, that the unit of analysis we need to aspire to
is *visceral* and sensuous. There are "everyday" concepts which are utterly
abstract and saturated with ideology and received knowledge. For example,
Marx's concept of capital is buying-in-order-to-sell, which is not the
"everyday" concept of capital at all, of course.
On 7/09/2017 8:48 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
Isn’t a unit of analysis (a germ cell) a preliminary concept, one might
say an everyday concept, that permits one to grasp the phenomenon that is
to be studied in such a way that it can be elaborated, in the course of
investigation, into an articulated and explicit scientific concept?
On Sep 6, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Greg Thompson <email@example.com>
Not sure if others might feel this is an oversimplification of unit of
analysis, but I just came across this in Wortham and Kim's Introduction
the volume Discourse and Education and found it useful. The short of it
that the unit of analysis is the unit that "preserves the
essential features of the whole".
Here is their longer explanation:
"Marx (1867/1986) and Vygotsky (1934/1987) apply the concept "unit of
analysis" to social scientific problems. In their account, an adequate
approach to any phenomenon must find the right unit of analysis - one
preserves the essential features of the whole. In order to study water, a
scientist must not break the substance down below the level of an
individual H20 molecule. Water is made up of nothing but hydrogen and
oxygen, but studying hydrogen and oxygen separately will not illuminate
essential properties of water. Similarly, meaningful language use
a unit of analysis that includes aspects beyond phonology,
grammar, semantics, and mental representations. All of these linguistic
psychological factors play a role in linguistic communication, but
language use also involves social action in a context that includes other
actors and socially significant regularities."
(entire chapter can be found on Research Gate at:
I thought that the water/H20 metaphor was a useful one for thinking
unit of analysis.
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602