[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?

[Alfredo Gil Jornet]

Martin, 
thanks, I agree. Vygotsky is very clear in the quote that you provide, and in the rest of the text, I believe. Yet, I still think that Dewey's explicit articulation of the specific use of the term *situation*, which is consistent with the way Vygotsky uses it, is not just redundant here but helps to clarify how a word (*situation*) that can be loosely used in everyday talk may have a quite determinate sense when we talk about the problem of the environment; and be of help when two people disagree on whether we can talk of "the same" environment or not.

Alfredo 
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
Sent: 13 October 2014 20:47
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?

Hi Alfredo,

I don't really see a dilemma... and I think LSV is pretty clear:

"How can one explain why exactly the same environmental conditions exert three different types of influence on these three different children? It can be explained because each of the children has a different attitude to the situation. Or, as we might put it, each of the children experienced the situation in a different way. .... So it appears that, depending on the fact that the same situation had been experienced by the three children in three different ways, the influence which this situation exerted on their development also turns out to be different."

Martin

On Oct 13, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Alfredo Gil Jornet <a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no> wrote:

> Julian, Martin,
>
> Perhaps a way out of the dilemma of whether we should be talking about the same mother/environment or about different mothers/environments is provided by Dewey's notion of *situation*, which always implies both organism and environment. We can then talk of different situations, yet the same environment.
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> Sent: 13 October 2014 19:59
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis?
>
> Julian,
>
> I would prefer to say that they all have the same mother, but they relate to her and interact with her in specific ways, depending largely on their stage of development.  She presumably relates to each of them somewhat differently, but undoubtedly each of them witnesses how she treats the others.
>
> So I'm saying that the environment is the same - they all live in a house with a drunken mother - but the ways they live in that environment, and the ways they make sense of it, differ.
>
> Martin
>
> On Oct 13, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Julian Williams <julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Martin
>>
>> Ok we are on the same page, if you agree the environment may not be the same for the three children... It is not just that they are developmentally at a different stage, but "mother" is actually a different environment for each of them.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 13 Oct 2014, at 17:54, "Martin John Packer" <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Julian,
>>>
>>> I've been trying to suggest that the dialectic is in the child's relationship to the environment. Or, as you say, as an aspect of child-in-the-environment (with-others).  Generally I try to avoid dualistic terminology such as 'in the child' versus 'in the world' or 'subjective' versus 'objective' - I think I'm following LSV's lead here, though certainly he uses the term "internal" a lot.
>>>
>>> Generally in children's development the environment does indeed change as they grow - parents make new arrangements for them. But in the case study that LSV describes, we have three children of different ages all dealing at the same time with the same adult. In this sense the environment is fixed, in this particular case.
>>>
>>> And surely you're right to suggest that the children are contributing to the environment in which they live. One can only imagine how a drunken mother responds to her youngest son wetting the bed, for example.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Julian Williams <julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Martin, and all
>>>>
>>>> I dont see the dialectic as 'internal' to the child, but as the child-in-the-environment.  But I think maybe there is a problem with the current drift in the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> The problem I see arising now is that we are beginning to take the environment here as something fixed or taken for granted, with the difference in the three Perezhivanie being totally about the subjects/childs different stages of development. I'm not sure this does justice to the dialectic Vygotsky had in mind (though I see it might appear so in the text). I think one has to consider the objective fact of the environment as something from which different strands may be apprehended, or if you like, or from which certain aspects can be 'refracted'.
>>>>
>>>> At the cost of perhaps causing confusion, I wonder if the notion of Zone of Proximal Development  can help here for those who use this idea ... A particular social plane (environment, classroom interaction etc) can offer a ZPD for some but be entirely useless to others, because of their different stages of development, yes, yes. But also, different learners at different stages can help create their own ZPDs within the same social space and even plane, (drawing from the same social interactions in different ways). So they may shape the very environment which provides for their own ZPD and hence development. I think this is a more adequate way to think of the dialectic, so the subject is not seen as passive in their own development.
>>>>
>>>> Julian
>>>>
>>>> (Maybe this passivity is what Mike had in mind when he expressed reservations about Vygotsky's use of the 'final ideal form' , eg of arithmetic, have I remembered this right? Anyway I DO have reservations about that notion in Vygotsky's chapter but maybe that's another story for later.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13 Oct 2014, at 14:53, "Martin John Packer" <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Robyn,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's important to recognize that the oldest child's understanding of the need to take care of his mother and siblings is not a drive or an impulse, it is, LSV tells us, a "duty" that follows from adopting a specific "role" in the family. Understanding the situation in terms of roles and duties is certainly socially mediated - after all, roles and duties are social, or societal, matters (ontological and deontological respectively, if we want to get technical). The oldest child - presumably attending school - is able to understand that he lives in a world of social institutions, one of which is his family.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this chapter LSV does not explore or explain how each kind of perezhivanie transforms into the next, but in his lectures on child development you can find a more detailed account. But here, in what is effectively a cross-sectional comparison of children at different ages (albeit only one at each age), he certainly means to suggest that  earlier forms provide the basis for later forms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 13, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Robyn Babaeff <robyn.babaeff@monash.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Much appreciated Martin - this is feeling more visual, and now I am
>>>>>> wondering is it possible to interpret that the older child's emotive
>>>>>> drive/action of care  for his mother and younger sibling in its moment is
>>>>>> also connected a socially mediated aspect of cognition from somewhere/time
>>>>>> in his earlier years of perezhivanie for the 'how to' in his choosing/drive
>>>>>> for duty of care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13 October 2014 23:21, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just thinking out loud here!!!!, but could the dialectic involving
>>>>>>>> perezhivanie be an internal one between the affective-cognitive
>>>>>>> connection?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me that when LSV contrasts the consequence of their mother's
>>>>>>> drinking for the three children, he is precisely sketching the dynamic
>>>>>>> development of perezhivanie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the youngest child, cognition is not yet differentiated from emotion,
>>>>>>> in fact emotion *is* the child's way of understanding and interpreting the
>>>>>>> circumstances. Completely dependent on the mother for all needs, the child
>>>>>>> is overcome by the enormity of what is happening. His reaction is one of
>>>>>>> extreme emotion - terror - and somatization - he urinates involuntarily and
>>>>>>> stammers. He loses control of his own body.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LSV writes that the youngest child is "simply overwhelmed by the horror of
>>>>>>> what is happening to him. As a result, he develops attacks of terror,
>>>>>>> enuresis and he develops a stammer, sometimes being unable to speak at all
>>>>>>> as he loses his voice. In other words, the child’s reaction amounts to a
>>>>>>> state of complete depression and helplessness in the face of this
>>>>>>> situation."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The second child illustrates perezhivanie that is more developed. The
>>>>>>> contradiction of the situation becomes an "inner" conflict - an alternation
>>>>>>> between, and combination of, a positive and a negative emotion towards the
>>>>>>> mother. Each of these attitudes is more organized than the breakdown seen
>>>>>>> in the youngest child. Each attitude is still primarily emotional, but it
>>>>>>> is an organized and focused emotion, not a somatic collapse. The child's
>>>>>>> love and fear is each a coherent way of grasping the situation, directed
>>>>>>> towards the mother who is understood first as good, and then as bad. It is,
>>>>>>> however, the combination, the coexistence, of these two emotions that is so
>>>>>>> difficult for the child. He is trapped in a dilemma of approach-avoidance.
>>>>>>> The contradiction in the situation - again, dependence on the mother; her
>>>>>>> failure to meet her children's needs - becomes a personal conflict for the
>>>>>>> child, who cannot yet reconcile it. His cognition alternates between two
>>>>>>> different and incompatible ways of interpreting his mother - she is a
>>>>>>> mother; no, she is a witch. His cognition is more capable than that of his
>>>>>>> younger brother, but it is still secondary to his emotion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LSV writes that "The second child is developing an extremely agonizing
>>>>>>> condition, what is called a state of inner conflict, which is a condition
>>>>>>> frequently found in certain cases when contrasting emotional attitudes
>>>>>>> towards the mother make their appearance, examples of which we have
>>>>>>> previously been able to observe among one of our children and which, you
>>>>>>> may remember, we have called an ambivalent attitude. On the one hand, from
>>>>>>> the child’s point of view, the mother is an object of painful attachment,
>>>>>>> and on the other, she represents a source of all kinds of terrors and
>>>>>>> terrible emotional experiences [perezhivanija] for the child. The German
>>>>>>> authors call this kind of emotional complex which the child is experiencing
>>>>>>> a Mutter-Hexekomplex, or ‘a mother-witch complex’, when love for the mother
>>>>>>> and terror of the witch coexist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The second child was brought to us with this kind of deeply pronounced
>>>>>>> conflict and a sharply colliding internal contradiction expressed in a
>>>>>>> simultaneously positive and negative attitude towards the mother, a
>>>>>>> terrible attachment to her and an equally terrible hate for her, combined
>>>>>>> with terribly contradictory behaviour. He asked to be sent home
>>>>>>> immediately, but expressed terror when the subject of his going home was
>>>>>>> brought up."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In contrast, the oldest child is able to view the situation with more
>>>>>>> detachment, because he is less dependent. His emotion of one of pity: of
>>>>>>> sorrow and compassion, not of love and fear. Sorrow and compassion can
>>>>>>> coexist; they do not contradict one another. He views his mother not as a
>>>>>>> bad person, a witch, but as a sick person, someone who is ill, or weak. She
>>>>>>> acts badly, but this does not mean that she is a bad person. This, then,
>>>>>>> means that he knows what to do: he has "a special role," with a "duty" to
>>>>>>> take care of both his mother and his younger sibling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here, emotion has become subordinated to cognition. The oldest child has a
>>>>>>> single, coherent way of interpreting his mother - she is ill. His emotions
>>>>>>> follow from that cognition, rather than the other way round.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LSV writes that the oldest child "understood that their mother was ill and
>>>>>>> he pitied her.... And he had a special role. He must calm his mother down,
>>>>>>> make certain that she is prevented from harming the little ones and comfort
>>>>>>> them. Quite simply, he has become the senior member of the family, the only
>>>>>>> one whose duty it was to look after everyone else".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, LV illustrates the relationship between emotion and cognition in
>>>>>>> each of these three children, and so shows how that relationship changes
>>>>>>> with age.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The youngest child is probably a toddler, the second a preschooler, and
>>>>>>> the oldest a school-aged child.
>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Robyn Babaeff <robyn.babaeff@monash.edu>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St?? ????a??, 12 ??t?ß???? 2014, ? ???st?? Andy Blunden <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ???a?e:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Robyn Babaeff*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>