[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?

[mike cole]

I wasn't pointing out, I was asking, Martin.
I am having trouble seeing contradiction in perezhivanie as well. more like
a mashup.
mike

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> wrote:

> Good question, Mike!  What you're pointing out is that LSV's own example
> doesn't quite do justice to his analysis in T&L.  Water is not a dynamic
> system: once hydrogen bonds with oxygen the process stops: water is a
> stable molecule. He should have picked an example in which an internal
> tension or clash of some kind provides a continual motor for change.
>
> In somewhat the same way, I'm trying to figure out how a triangle is
> dynamic. It's one of the most stable geometric shapes.  :)
>
> Martin
>
> On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:26 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Martin. What is the contradiction between hydrogen and oxygen such that
> two
> > atoms of hydrogen combined with one atom of oxygen give rise to water
> with
> > its distinctive qualities? Knowing that should help people to rise to the
> > concrete for their own cases.
> > mike
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Martin John Packer <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, if it works for you, Helena..!  :)
> >>
> >> Clearly Yrjo does claim that the triangle represents a dynamic system
> with
> >> contradictions. I'm still reading the chapter that Mike linked to, and I
> >> already some questions. But I'll wait until I read it all before
> posting.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> On Oct 12, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On the contrary.
> >>>
> >>> To me, that very affordance is one of the great things about activity
> >> theory and the activity system as a unit of analysis. A very simple
> example
> >> is that if you change something in the norms/customs/laws/history
> corner of
> >> the triangle (like win a court case that gives you a stronger footing in
> >> bargaining), then your tools also change. Another: if by bringing new
> >> members into the community (the base of the triangle) out of which
> division
> >> of labor raises the subjects, you may find yourself with a leadership
> team
> >> that is not all white, or not all primarily English-speaking, which in
> turn
> >> will change what tools/resources you have and may, if you're lucky and
> >> quick, change your history.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Helena Worthen
> >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Martin John Packer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And what's neat about this way of thinking is that it implies that,
> >> once one understands the relationships among the components, one can
> bring
> >> about changes in one component in the totality by acting on *another*
> >> component of the totality.
> >>>>
> >>>> The activity system triangle does not suggest to me this type of
> >> relationship among components. Instead, it seems to represent elements
> that
> >> are only accidentally brought together.
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Martin John Packer <
> >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Seems to me the problem in many research projects is that the
> question
> >> is not formulated in an appropriate way. LSV was exploring a method of
> >> analysis that seeks to understand the relationship among components in a
> >> complex totality. Not the causal influence of one factor on another,
> which
> >> is often how students frame their research interest. And this means that
> >> the unit of analysis has to represent, exemplify, this relationship.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Martin
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As someone who uses the concept of "unit of analysis" in a very
> >> down-to-earth, quick and dirty, applied way to shape collective
> responses
> >> to a crisis in a labor and employment relationships (like, when a rule
> >> changes creates difficulties for workers), I would agree with Andy:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The other thing is that discovering a unit of analysis is an
> >> *insight*. It
> >>>>>>> is not something that can be achieved by following a template, it
> is
> >> the
> >>>>>>> breakthrough in your research into some problem, the leap. It
> >> usually comes
> >>>>>>> *after* you've collected all the data for your research using some
> >> other
> >>>>>>> unit of analysis.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> First comes the story, the details, the experiences. The question
> >> lying behind the telling of the stories is, "What are we going to do?"
> The
> >> unit of analysis gets defined by the purpose we are trying to
> accomplish.
> >> Are we trying to get the employer to back off temporarily? Are we trying
> >> get the rule changed? Example:  In a big hospital system in Chicago,
> >> clerical workers were no longer allowed to leave an "I'm going to be
> late
> >> to work today" or "I have to stay home with my sick kid today and will
> miss
> >> work" message on the answering machines of their supervisors. We're
> talking
> >> about a workforce with hundreds of employees, most of them middle aged
> >> minority women -- with grandchildren and extended families to be
> >> responsible for.  Not being allowed to leave a message on a machine, but
> >> being required to actually speak to a supervisor in person who would
> then
> >> keep a record of the call, was a problem because supervisors were often
> >> away from their desks and the whole phone system was unreliable. Also, a
> >> lot of workers didn't have cell phones at the time this was happening
> >> (2004) and pay phones are few and far between, so if someone it out
> buying
> >> more asthma inhalers for a grandkid, making a phone call is not easy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, exactly what is the purpose that we're trying to accomplish,
> >> here?  To repeal the rule? To fix the phone system?  To educate members
> of
> >> the union and other others about how to respond collectively to
> something
> >> that only affects some of them? To make a profound change in society so
> >> that middle-aged women are not the primary caretakers of an extended
> >> family?  Pick one. Once you've picked one (hopefully, one that you can
> >> carry out) you can define the unit of analysis and then reviewing the
> whole
> >> Engestrom triangle and evaluating your strategy becomes, as Andy says,
> a
> >> matter of solving puzzles.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From the employer point of view, asking workers to actually speak
> to
> >> a live supervisor makes a certain sense. That's why we talk about
> activity
> >> system(s), not just one activity system. But they are often in conflict
> >> with each other, which adds to the drama.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is the data in your study being gathered with some purpose in mind?
> >> Is the purpose the purpose of the children, the purpose of the class, or
> >> the purpose of the PhdD program?  To me, what would be most interesting
> >> would be a comparison between the unit of analysis (purposes of
> children)
> >> and unit of analysis (purpose of classroom). I'll bet they're not
> identical.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Helena
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Helena Worthen
> >>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Katerina Plakitsi wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This problem of the ' unit of analysis' is my concern too. I
> >> supervise
> >>>>>>> three PHD students on Science Education in a CHAT context. Two of
> >> them on
> >>>>>>> early childhood science education and one on primary science. They
> >> have
> >>>>>>> collected log files, children discourses consisted of
> >>>>>>> scientific justifications, accepted rules, and forms of division of
> >> labor.
> >>>>>>> They have collected children narratives, and drawings. When they
> >> decided to
> >>>>>>> analyze their data they follow different paths into CHAT context
> >> mainly
> >>>>>>> modeling them using Engestrom's triangle. They still doubt about
> the
> >> " unit
> >>>>>>> of analysis".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Στις Κυριακή, 12 Οκτωβρίου 2014, ο χρήστης Andy Blunden <
> >> ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>>> έγραψε:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Katie, picking up on your concern about units of analysis, it was
> >> one of
> >>>>>>>> the points I mentioned in my "report" from ISCAR, that this
> concept
> >> was
> >>>>>>>> almost lost to us. A phrase I heard a lot, and which was new for
> >> me, was
> >>>>>>>> "unit to be analysed." If anyone knows the origin of this
> >> expression, I'd
> >>>>>>>> be interested in hearing. It seemed to me that what it referred to
> >> was a
> >>>>>>>> "closed system" for analysis, that is, abandoning CHAT methodology
> >> whilst
> >>>>>>>> keeping the word. If I am mistaken about this, please let me know.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The other thing is that discovering a unit of analysis is an
> >> *insight*. It
> >>>>>>>> is not something that can be achieved by following a template, it
> >> is the
> >>>>>>>> breakthrough in your research into some problem, the leap. It
> >> usually comes
> >>>>>>>> *after* you've collected all the data for your research using some
> >> other
> >>>>>>>> unit of analysis. In Kuhn's terms, discovery of the unit is the
> new
> >>>>>>>> paradigm, after which it is just a matter of solving puzzles. So
> for
> >>>>>>>> graduate students to use the concept of unit in their research,
> >> often
> >>>>>>>> depends on the wisdom of teh direction they get from their
> >> supervisor. I
> >>>>>>>> don't know how many PhD students I've met who have got to this
> >> point in
> >>>>>>>> their thesis and discover that the data they have is not the data
> >> they now
> >>>>>>>> know they need.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Katherine Wester Neal wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I like Holli's plan to commit some time to reading the two
> >> articles. But,
> >>>>>>>>> as usual, I don't know that I'll have much to contribute in
> posts.
> >> I
> >>>>>>>>> usually get deep in thinking about the posts and don't follow
> that
> >> through
> >>>>>>>>> to write something. The writing is much harder, and I am usually
> >> just
> >>>>>>>>> trying to keep up with reading!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For me, the thread has been fascinating, probably because I'm
> >> interested
> >>>>>>>>> in different units of analysis, what they might be used for, and
> >> how they
> >>>>>>>>> fit together with theory and conducting research. What are people
> >> doing
> >>>>>>>>> with units of analysis and why? Or why aren't units of analysis
> >> being used?
> >>>>>>>>> If anyone wants to write more in that direction, I'd be very
> >> interested to
> >>>>>>>>> read, and I'll try to respond, although the questions might be as
> >> basic as
> >>>>>>>>> these.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Lastly, Andy has basically been articulating my thoughts (in a
> >> much more
> >>>>>>>>> eloquent way than I would) about action as a unit of analysis. In
> >> Mike's
> >>>>>>>>> example about driving and thinking and writing, I'd add that the
> >> action is
> >>>>>>>>> mediated. Together with sociocultural and historical factors that
> >>>>>>>>> influenced those actions (and which, as has been said here
> before,
> >> are
> >>>>>>>>> often difficult to get a look at), the actions create a picture
> of
> >> much
> >>>>>>>>> more than just Mike's behavior.
> >>>>>>>>> Katie
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal
> >>>>>>>>> University of Georgia
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> ............................................................
> >>>>>>> Katerina Plakitsi
> >>>>>>> Associate Professor of Science Education
> >>>>>>> School of Education
> >>>>>>> University of Ioannina
> >>>>>>> University Campus Dourouti 45110
> >>>>>>> Ioannina
> >>>>>>> Greece
> >>>>>>> tel. +302651005771
> >>>>>>> fax. +302651005842
> >>>>>>> mobile.phone +306972898463
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits
> >>>>>>> http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr
> >>>>>>> http://www.lib.uoi.gr/serp
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>
>
>


-- 
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.