Hi Merja, David, and everyone,
Thanks so much for the correspondence. I have just forwarded a
document to Mike to
post on the web site. It includes a copy of my abstract and the
chapter I
referred to on the philosophical assumptions specific to my
dissertation
methodology. I also included the subsequent chapter on the actual
methodology
detailing the nuts and bolts of the protocol itself as a means to
highlight the praxis. Hopefully, this will be useful to forward the
discussion.
How ironic it is that I defended the work one year ago today to my
chair, Vera John-Steiner. Holbrook Mahn was extremely helpful as a
member of the committee. It was also a privilege to work with Ed
DeSantis and Ernie Stringer. Ernie is one of Denzin's students and his
second edition of Action Research (1999) helped to organize and inform
the work.
As you read between the lines, I am sure you will recognize that I am
1) a novice researcher operating on the lower trajectory that forms the
ZPD 2) a highly overeducated primary school teacher 3) a representative
occupying the lowest rung of the academic food chain as a beginning
professor. It's a little intimidating to think one's work will be read
by giants in academia. At the same time, your suggestions, comments, and
dialogue are most welcome. Please share your own work along the same
lines.
Best wishes,
Cathrene
M. Cathrene Connery, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Bilingual & TESL Education
Central Washington University
>>> Merja Helle <Merja.Helle@Helsinki.Fi> 1/14/2007 2:38 AM >>>
cathrene
i certainly would be interested in your dissertation
merja helle
e-mail: merja.helle@helsinki.fi
Quoting Cathrene Connery <ConneryC@cwu.EDU>:
> Hi everyone:
> My dissertation on the ontogenesis of emergent biliterates (2006)
> integrated sociocultural and action research methods. During the
course
> of the writing,it became necessary to include an additional chapter
on
> the philosophical assumptions of the study for one of the committee
> members to legitimize my approach. I'd be happy to forward the
chapter
> as an attachment to anyone who is interested. It certainly would
make a
> fun article for anyone who'd like to collaborate!
> Cathrene
> >>> Kevin Rocap <Kevin.Rocap@liu.edu> 1/12/2007 7:26 AM >>>
> Dear Elaine,
>
> Hi! You pose some interesting things to consider. I can suggest
what I
>
> think are a few clarifications (perhaps distinctions, perhaps not
;-)).
>
> (1) Action research involves the practitioner in researching
> his/her/their own practices whether for ongoing improvement or for
other
>
> social action/change. The CHAT framework has certainly been applied
by
> folks studying other people's actions, not necessarily their own.
>
> (2) While CHAT provides some theories of action, object, tool use,
> interrelations, I'm not sure I'd characterize it as inherently
> "activist" which I think is more in the hands of whomever is making
use
> of the CHAT framework.
>
> (3) A CHAT framework could certainly be used by
practitioner-researchers
>
> within their own action research activity and might help them
understand
>
> and/or comment upon diverse tools, objects/intents/purposes,
contexts,
> etc. of their own researched practice, imho.
>
> (4) Action Science referenced by Engestrom is very specfiic and does
not
>
> layout the same range of variables for consideration (i.e., the
various
> points on the triangle in the case of CHAT). The primary focus from
my
> prior experience studying action science with Chris Argyris is that
the
> focus is on talk among actors in an organization and how that frames,
> organizes, coordinates and provides a window into their commitments,
> attitudes, and behaviors (whether Model I or Model II in the Argyris
> typology). True their talk may have to, at key points, be
> compared/contrasted with their non-verbal behaviors (yet without real
> frameworks regarding ways to assess those behaviors per se), but
verbal
> behaviors were always the primary focus in my short experience (maybe
> the presumption is that much of corporate behavior hinges on talk
;-)).
>
> My two cents.
>
> In Peace,
> K.
>
>
>
> Elaine Mateus wrote:
> > Dear All,
> > There has been a recurrent issue among some of my brazilian peers
> regarding differences and/or similarities between action-research and
the
> CHAT methodological framing. I'm also uncertain about this matter as
I
> read Kemmis, for example, saying that:
> >
> > In my view, critical or emancipatory action research is always
> connected to social action: it always understands itself as a
concrete
> and practical expression of the aspiration to change the social (or
> educational) world for the better through improving shared social
> practices, our shared understandings of these social practices, and
the
> shared situations in which these practices are carried out. It is
thus
> always critical, in the sense that it is about relentlessly trying
to
> understand and improve the way things are in relation to how they
could
> be better. But it is also critical in the sense that it is activist:
it
> aims at creating a form of collaborative learning by doing (in which
> groups of participants set out to learn from change in a process of
> making changes, studying the process and consequences of these
changes,
> and trying again). It aims to help people understand themselves as
the
> agents, as well as the products, of history. In my view, action
research
> is also committed to spreading involvement and participation in the
> research process. (Kemmis, 1993 http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n1.html)
> >
> > On the other hand, Engestrom and his colleagues in "The discursive
> construction of collaborative care" (2003 :433), say that:
> >
> > For example, one might ask what is the difference between our work
and
> the 'action science' practiced by Chris Argyris and his colleagues
> (Argyris & al., 1985). Action science is aimed at making
practitioners
> aware of the persistent and often harmful 'single-loop' mechanisms
in
> their talk and interaction. However, in action science literature,
we
> don't learn much about how the practitioners actually change their
> practices, or what new tools and organizational structures they
develop
> and adopt.
> >
> > Can someone suggest further readings so that we can have a better
> understanding on this issue?
> > Thanks
> > Elaine Mateus
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> M. Cathrene Connery, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor of Bilingual & TESL Education
> Central Washington University
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
**********************************************************
Merja Helle
Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research
University of Helsinki
Address: 00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
phone:+358 (0)50-4485 111
email: merja.helle@helsinki.fi
************************************************************
"You don't the know the facts before you know the fiction"
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:32 PST