Those interested in the action/chat methodology discussion
I do not understand how, if one believes that culture is constiutive of
human development, one can ignore the history of the behaviors in activity
that are the object of the research at the center of the discussion on this
list for the past quarter of a century. This argument is made concretely in
extenso in a variety of places and to start it de novo here I think that the
onus is on those who wish to jettison genetic analysis. The organization of
activity in any work place or in any classroom or at any family table and
hence the organiztion of behvior, its subjective significance or
participants, etc. ALL require such an
analysis. That such analyses take time, and are inconvenient, expensive,
difficulty, etc. is a separate issue. That microgenesis, which I engage in
routinely,
is most accessible and close to the level of action research, is important
to note as a starting point. But to stop there would, in my view, be a
shame.
Off to prepare a week's worth of lectures and read the posted articles.
mike
On 1/21/07, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> It seems to me the example you give about a headache has more to do with a
> definition of the problem than it does to do with the role of history. Do I
> define the problem as a need to remove the pain right now, or do I define
> the problem as the need to make sure I don't get headaches again. If I
> define the poblem as the former then I take an aspirin, and because the
> consequences of the action are that I no longer have a headache, I am able
> to assert that the aspirin helped in getting rid of the headache, and I have
> a relatively high level of warranted assertability, and the aspirin becomes
> the first instrument I reach for when wanting to solve a similar
> problem. If I want to get rid of my headaches completely, I don't determine
> the cause beforehand, because that is going to guide my problem solving
> activity, but not necessarily in the right direction (let's say I think that
> my dog's barking is causing my headaches - I get rid of my dog, and that is
> my solution. But my headaches continue, and now I am without a
> dog). Instead I approach the problem as an experiment, setting up careful
> activities with measurable consequences. This is not to say that ideas that
> have gone before are not important, but only as part of an array of
> instruments I can use in my experiment.
>
> But history often times plays a more important, defining role, that has
> implications for our problem solving. History takes a dominant position in
> our thinking and then we focus on maintenance of history rather than the
> solving of the problem. This, it seems to me, is at least part of the
> problem that action research is attempting to deal with, at least in some of
> its incarnations. It is interesting because Santayana makes the point very
> early that Americans have two ways of dealing with issues - the way they say
> they are going to deal with issues and the way that they actually do deal
> with issues. Even back in in early part of the nineteenth century
> American's were saying that they deal with issues through religion/ideology
> such as being Catholics, or Protestants, or Conservatives or such. But in
> actual problem solving Americans are almost always Naturalists, dealing with
> problems as they occur within the confines of nature. The difficulty is
> sometimes that ideology overwhelms Naturalism, and it does so through
> history - meaning it causes people to confuse who they say they are with
> what they do. Here in the United States we are going through an interesting
> political period in which individuals actually act (vote) against their own
> best interests. The question is why. Is it the manipulation of activity
> through the implications of history? Again, it seems to me that this was
> one of the issues Action Research is meant to solve (I have some ideas of
> why it might not be that successful related to the dynamic nature of
> information). This is why I wonder if the introduction of history from the
> CHAT perspective is necessarily a positive for Action Research. I don't
> have any answer for this, and I'm not drawing any conclusions. Just
> something this discussion on Action Research has spurred in my thinking.
>
> Michael
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
> Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 12:52 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to
> XMCAtheoreticaland methodological interests
>
>
>
> Hi Michael,
> the problem with "immediate problems" is that these are concrete
> expressions of issues at a very different level. Addressing the
> immediate problem is like taking aspirin when you hurt somewhere.
> What this solution to your immediate problem does not provide you
> with is an understanding of the causes of headache, so that taking
> aspirin is only patching some deeper problem---the causes, which are
> of a very different nature, could be psychological, psychosomatic,
> physiological, etc.
> Historical analysis of the system as a whole is one way of getting at
> the determinants---causes---of the immediate problems and how these
> are mediated by the system as a whole. There are neat analyses by
> Klaus Holzkamp or Ole Dreier that show why in counseling, for
> example, you need to do more than treat immediate causes.
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> On 21-Jan-07, at 9:15 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:
>
> Had a chance to take a look at both Cathrene's chapters and the paper
> by Anne Edwards. It is really interesting, good work. I am left
> with an initial question. In both cases (and I might be wrong here),
> what the authors were saying that CHAT (or SCRAT) have to offer
> action research is a historical perspective, which, from what I am
> reading, is not really part of Action research. The question this
> brings to mind is, "Is this a good thing?" Do we naturally take
> historical analysis as a good when we are attempting to deal with
> immediate problems, and to sort of break the yoke the the larger
> cultural foregrounding when attempting to deal with immediate
> problems, or does it in some way "stack the deck" and force a more
> culturally historical acceptable solution to the problem. It's a
> problem I really struggle with. One thing that Cathrene's chapters
> really did for me is make me recognize the relationship between micro-
> genetic research and action research - because I suppose in the best
> of all possible worlds micro-genetic research is action research (or
> is it the other way around?)
>
> Michael
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
> Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 11:32 AM
> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to XMCA
> theoreticaland methodological interests
>
>
>
> Hi all, regarding the question of action research in schools and
> CHAT---i.e., the points Anne Edwards article is about---we also had
> written many years ago a conceptualization of this form of research
> and some variants in an online article that some might find
> interesting in this context:
>
> Roth, Wolff-Michael, Lawless, Daniel V. & Tobin, Kenneth (2000,
> December). {Coteaching | Cogenerative Dialoguing} as Praxis of
> Dialectic Method [47 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
> Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(3). Available
> at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00rothetal-
> e.htm [Date of Access: Month Day, Year]
>
> Cheers, Michael
>
>
> On 19-Jan-07, at 5:37 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> Two papers have been posted and can now be found at the xmca website:
>
> Catherene's chapters and the article by Anne Edwards.
>
>
> We will be posting an article from the most recent, exciting, issue
> of MCA
> shortly. More about
> that later since there is slippage in the process.
>
> But the papers for discussion are there. Perhaps
> Time for doing some research by taking action and finding them so you
> can
> comment, ask questions,
> or provide an excuse not to do the dishes!!
>
> Have a nice weekend all.
> mike
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 - 10:11:33 PST