[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?

[Robyn Babaeff]

Just thinking out loud here!!!!, but could the dialectic involving
perezhivanie be an internal one between the affective-cognitive connection?
As social mediation occurs cognitive conceptualising moves into a different
realm, but perhaps does not sync with the internal affective position of
the moment in time.  This could also occur vice-versa where there is
emotive movement but the thinking is opposing the feeling. Then as the
cognitive-affective sync - the overall transformation occurs from the
internal crisis of disconnected affective-cognitive.  As the connectedness
takes place the growth/change develops???? And in turn
motive/action/subjective situating is in transforming motion.

On 13 October 2014 22:12, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Which is  a useful reminder that the same is true of any and every word,
> but to differing degrees. We may feel that we are all operating with the
> same meaning (znachenie) when we use a word in a context like this
> discussion but each of us 'means' something different by it because we each
> have our own  sense (smysl) of its significance (which includes our
> awareness of how it is fought over, what sort of people can be expected to
> use it more or less as we do,  how it may annoy or mislead some people,
> etc.). To say we speak the 'same' language can only ever be an
> approximation. As I see it, this is why meaning must be negotiated in
> discussion rather than asserted by proclamation - we get closer to
> understanding how a particular person uses particular words when we get to
> know that person as a person and that involves much more than just batting
> words to and fro!
>
> Rod
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
> on behalf of Patrick Jaki [patrick.jaki@gmail.com]
> Sent: 13 October 2014 12:00
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?
>
> Does perezhivanie have a direct equivalent translation in English?  Is this
> not part of the problem that a word in its original language, in this case
> Russian, cannot be translated directly into other languages, which adds
> onto our problem of making sense and meaning of it.
>
> On 13 October 2014 10:57, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> wrote:
>
> > Andy,
> >
> > I agree that it's an example and illustration that cannot capture
> > everything.
> >
> > But I think you've got the chemistry wrong! If I remember my college
> > chemistry correctly, H2O isn't a combination of H+ and OH-, because that
> > would imply an asymmetry that does not in fact exist. Oxygen is strongly
> > electronegative, meaning it draws electrons from the hydrogen atoms,
> > leading to a bond between an O+ ion and two H- ions.  This has the
> > consequence that the water molecule a dipole, which leads to hydrogen
> > bonding between water molecules, the result of which is that water is a
> > liquid at room temperature while other hydrides formed from elements that
> > are close to oxygen in the periodic table are gases.
> >
> > So, yes, there are tensions and contradictions in the *formation* of
> > water. My point was that once formed, there are no contradictions driving
> > further development. That's not entirely true; water does partially
> > dissociate, into H3O+ and OH-. This means that a body of water is
> actually
> > in constant change, creating and breaking hydrogen bonds, and
> dissociating
> > and reassociating. A dynamic stasis, if you like. But it doesn't develop
> > further.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2014, at 11:51 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Martin, I think it is nothing more than the limitations of a metaphor -
> > it can only illustrate one aspect of the target. In this case it is
> simply
> > saying that a quantity of water is just thousands H2O molecules, and
> > nothing else. No addition is required to manifest all the properties of
> > water.
> > >
> > > You would have to be a chemist to know the forces that bind the H and
> OH
> > together and how they can be separated, H containing a positive charge
> and
> > OH containing a negative charge - a good old positive/negative
> > contradiction. All chemicals with the H ion are acids and all chemicals
> > with the OH ion are alkali, but water is both acid and base and therefore
> > neither. *If you want* the water molecule is a tangle of contradictions
> and
> > transformations, along with Carbon, the foundation of the chemistry of
> > life. :)
> > > Andy
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >
> > >
> > > Martin John Packer 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.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Patrick Jaki*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *P. O Box 505 WitsJohannesburg2050South Africa*
> ________________________________
> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>
> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for
> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it.
> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts
> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails
> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility
> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied
> by an official order form.
>
>


-- 
*Robyn Babaeff*