[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis? LSV versus ANL

Fri Oct 17 10:58:40 PDT 2014

Hi et al.

Perhaps one of the things that held up the discussion of the two articles
about perezhivanie (LSV and critique by ANL) (Vygotsky and Leontiev) is my
failure to write a precis of the
ANL critique.

Several factors interfered, but most germane here is that, like David, I
was repulsed  by the entire rhetorical approach ANL used. These men were
close colleagues. That ANL starts off the article positioning himself in
support of the Central Committee decree banning pedology (& effectively
psychology as a whole) puts us right in the thick of the purges... So this
is not an academic debating society we are witnessing. People on the wrong
side were sent to the gulag or killed outright. And it did not get better
any time soon. ANL was right there in 1948-49 pushing Stalin's support of
Lysenko in a pedagogical journal.

Second, once I got past the long section doing a hatchet job on Blonskii
and others and got to to the discussion of LSV's work, I could not outline
the argument. It seems to twist and turn and double back on itself.
Finally, last night, I decided that maybe the following passage is as close
as we can get to a short summary of the paper (p. 25):

Thus, Vygotsky’s proposition that consciousness is a product of the child’s
verbal communication under conditions of his activity and in relation to
the material reality that surrounds him must be turned around: the
consciousness of a child is a product of his human activity in relation to
objective reality, taking place under conditions of language and under
conditions of verbal communication.

It is specifically this proposition that is decisive.

Decisive? I think not. Reading this in the context of the surrounding
argument, it appears that ANL is doing everything he can to paint LSV as an
bourgeois idealist. This applies for the topic that has been taken up here,
the notion of the ideal as present in the culturally organized environment
of the human child from the moment of birth (if not before). In this
regard, I agree with the direction that Julian points us in locating the
ideal in cultural practices:

 I don¹t think it would have taken much to persuade Vygotsky (had he been
 alive to the critique) that the 'ideal form' that already exists from the
start of development only 'exists' (if it does) objectively in social
practices/activity,

Perhaps I erred is suggesting that we read these two pieces to straighten
out our own ideas about the LSV-ANL split. I was (am) motivated by the fact
that in the past several months of discussions with Russian psychologists
who participate in a self-identified cultural-historical psychology forum,
LSV's focus toward the end of his life on perezhivanie was picked out as
the "proposition that is decisive." Since I have long championed emphasis
on the reasons for rejecting that split as a consequence of the terror
under which people were working, and the need to consider both mediation
and activity as mutually constitutive, the need to focus on the presumed
intellectual justification for considering the two positions to be
principally different seemed important to address.

I am in no way inclined to abandon my view that joint, mediated, activity
is a proper unit of analysis for understanding the role of culture in
development. But I am also much more aware than I was a year ago of the
susceptibility of ANL's version of activity theory to become a tool of
oppressive state power -- which makes me more attentive to arguments by
people like Anna Stetsenko concerning the transformative potential of these
same ideas. For better and for worse.

Regarding a defense of LSV that you call for Julian: At this point in the
discussion, if people have not read Andy's paper defending LSV's view,
which is on academia.edu and which i am sure he is happy to send around, do
so. As Larry's note indicates. The linking of artifact mediation to
Pierce's notion of interpretant is one of many indications of the
usefulness of bringing together Pierce and CHAT. This is a suggestion that
can be traced in xmca history back to the work of Arne Raeithel, which can
be found in MCA and the xmca archives.

I also liked the invocation of Raymond Williams' notion of "structure of
feeling" in this connection. Anyone who has not done so will gain a lot of
pleasure, not to mention historical and human understanding, by reading
Elizabeth Gaskell. Wonderful.

mike

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Julian Williams <
julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Dear Larry and all interested in Leontiev's critique of Vygotsky
>
> This discussion seems to have cooled off, unless I missed some posts: a
> pityŠ I was hoping we would get at the nub of Leontiev's critique of
> Vygotsky's 'idealism'. Im not normally on Leontiev's side in these
> debates, but here goes:
>
> I don¹t think it would have taken much to persuade Vygotsky (had he been
> alive to the critique) that the 'ideal form' that already exists from the
> start of development
> only 'exists' (if it does) objectively in social practices/activity, and
> that hence that a ZPD for development (the example given in the paper is
> arithmetic) then has to authentically embed these ideal forms in practices
> (in the classroom in simulated shopping, or whatever) that make good sense
> for the childŠ so the perezhivanie is itself embedded/situated in the
> child's being/relations in social activity and the material objects,
> motives and emotions and discourses etc that come with that. (I take this
> to be ANL's point).
>
> Leontiev's reading of Vygotsky's text is not exactly unfair: I can imagine
> readings of this 'final form' of the ideal 'already existing' leading to
> distortions in activity theory (and it is a real problem Im writing about
> this just now). I argue that in fact the idea that 'arithmetic' already
> exists in an ideal final form and the task of development is to engage the
> child with this ideal form is a dangerous formulation: rather I argue that
> arithmetic has to appear in practice, in 'real social practice with all
> the emotional baggage that it should have, i.e. as a solution to a
> meaningful problem in practice, rather than an alienating bundle of
> formulae to be internalised, as a punishment for being a child forced into
> schooling.
>
> And this social context of the 'ideal form' is of course absolutely part
> of what makes the perezhivanie, it is not just the stage of the child's
> development but their engagement in the activity/social practice and its
> motives tooŠ. To arithmetic: if you can bear with me! There is in practice
> no 'final form' of arithmetic anyway. Each generation learns and
> experiences it differently, and its done differently in different micro
> cultures, and long may this be the case (e.g. In subtraction do you add to
> the bottom or take from the top, or what...; in practice, do you use a
> pencil to do sums or use your your phone as a calculatorŠ etc etc?)
>
> So: Leontiev maybe has an axe to grind about the material, object-oriented
> base of (semiotic etc etc mediated) activity, but I think also here he has
> a point.
>
> In defence of Vygotsky anyone?
>
> julian
>
>
>
> On 13/10/2014 20:53, "Larry Purss" <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >To return to Leontiev's article on the environment.
> >On page 19 Leontiev says Vygotsky uses the word *communication* with the
> >narrow meaning of *spiritual sense* or *spiritual relationships* to
> >signify
> >the way we use words and language.
> >Leontiev suggests this is a limited meaning of communication which
> >excludes
> >a BROADER meaning [BEYOND LANGUAGE USE] to *signify* the GENERAL FACT of
> >people's relationships which ENCOMPASS their material dealings.
> >
> >Is this way of presenting the difference in *communication* the SAME
> >[equal] difference that *divides* materialism and idealism?
> >Leontiev goes on to say:
> >When Vygotsky views the person AS *the subject of communication* the child
> >INEVITABLY IS transformed through THIS SIGNIFICATION of *communication*
> >into an IDEAL PSYCHOLOGICAL subject AND the environment is transformed
> >into
> >an IDEAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT.
> >
> >Leontiev then goes on to say that Vygotsky's thinking IS moving along
> >THESE
> >*ideal* lines of development and it is THIS conceptual starting point
> >which
> >is transforming Vygotsky's theory into a *spiritual* theory.
> >For Vygotsky, *discovering* the ROLE of *communication* [contact with
> >people] AS A DRIVING FORCE of development Vygotsky INTRODUCES *the*
> >understanding [in Peirce's term an *interpretant*] of a *FINAL IDEAL FORM*
> >This ideal form IS an existing phenomena [form] in the environment from
> >the
> >beginning when the new born infant is thrown into THIS world.
> >In the process of development the child acquires THIS *ideal form* [which
> >already exists in the environment in IDEAL form] BE-comes the *model* that
> >results at the end of development.
> >IDEAL in *this* sense IS A MODEL of what results at the end of
> >development.
> >The beginning form EXISTS in relation [in unity??] with the *ideal form*
> >[with the model] which pre-exists the beginning form of the infant AND
> >TRULY INTERACTS WITH the infant's development.
> >
> >Leontiev goes on to claim that this specific example is characteristic,
> >for
> >Vygotsky, of ALL OTHER MEANING development.
> >MODELS *truly exist* in the world [which emerged historically in previous
> >social historical situations]
> >
> >Leontiev then goes on to make a STRONG claim that these models actually
> >*determine* and *direct* the infant's first steps.
> >I wonder if a weaker claim that models *influence* the infants first step
> >is what Vygotsky *meant*
> >SO -the environment [and models] *appear* [or seem] TO BE the
> >*vehicle* [carrier[ of development of THESE forms/models and these forms
> >*determine* the development of shared *meaning*
> >
> >Now from this criticism of pre-existing *models* Leontiev claims Vygotsky
> >IS LOCKED in a vicious circle.
> >However, if *models* as various multiple [interpretants - Peirce] ACTUALLY
> >EXIST THEN Vygotsky's theory is *true* in actual fact.
> >
> >This leads into the *loose* thread of the place of the *imaginal* in the
> >*real* and I would point to Raymond William's book "Marxism and
> >Literature"
> >to explore the imaginal within Marxian *cultural theory*.
> >Also on another thread a discussion of Umberto Eco's notion of *primary
> >indexicality* prior to subjects and objects but that leads beyond the
> >focus
> >of Leontiev's revisioning Vygotsky
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Martin John Packer <
> >mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 child¹s 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 child¹s 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 Œa mother-witch complex¹, 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*
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

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