I would love to look at this chapter as well.
deb
On 1/25/07, Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting comments, Catherene.
>
> I picked out the following for followup comment:
>
> I concur with her call for action research to move beyond "explicit
> practitioner's tacit knowledge" to "conceptualize how knowledge held in
> communities of practice might be informed, used, constructed, and shared".
>
> Seems like the Engestrom use of a developmental work lab is an explicit
> set
> of procedures for doing this. Is this work generally familiar? If not, I
> could ask Yrjo for a recent chapter which summarize the links to the
> method
> of dual stimulation and his
> notion of using that method for humans to create their own zopeds
> (echoing
> back on
> prior issue)
> mike
>
>
>
> On 1/24/07, Cathrene Connery <ConneryC@cwu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Buenas noches companeros,
> >
> > Jay is correct in stating that, at least in the United States, we are
> > threatened by sterile, ahistorical or uni-historical epistemologies of
> > reality derived from political sound bites and drive-through
> observations,
> > "whitewashed" of all cultural influence with the exception of consumer
> > culture.
> >
> > In regards to SCHAT & action research, Edwards' article is, indeed,
> > excellent with many cogent points. I concur with her call for action
> > research to move beyond "explicit practitioner's tacit knowledge" to
> > "conceptualize how knowledge held in communities of practice might be
> > informed, used, constructed, and shared". She elegantly draws on Moll's
> > funds of knowledge as a data source in the investigatory process, and
> yet my
> > understanding of action research goes a little further than "the
> production
> > and interpretation of complex environments" by researcher OR
> > participant. While I may have missed her boat, the value of action
> > research, when motivated, informed, and contextualized by SCHAT, is that
> the
> > process 1) results in the creation of a novel fund of knowledge that,
> when
> > applied to the historical context serves as a 2) a semiotic process or
> > psychological tool for the direct, immediate benefit or use of the
> > stakeholders engaged in the study. It is critical that the process of
> > investigation, while commencing with the researcher, concludes with the
> > collaborative creation of transformative tools based on the input and
> > energies of the participants in a manner of significance to their
> > perezhivanija.
> >
> > In this framework, historical analysis retains a critical component of
> the
> > process in that it helps us to 1) contextualize where we have been so we
> may
> > 2) choose to engage in a dialectic, transactional process with the past
> to
> > 3) potentially transform the future without rebuilding a different house
> > with same tools and resources of the master so to speak. This is the
> beauty
> > of the genetic method as informed by the goals and protocols of action
> > research.
> >
> > Cathrene
> >
> >
> >
> > M. Cathrene Connery, Ph.D.
> > Assistant Professor of Bilingual & TESL Education
> > Central Washington University
> >
> > >>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> 1/23/2007 11:35 PM >>>
> > Jay, I certainly take seriously your injunction for us to try harder to
> > understand how other people think politically, but I am not sure that I
> > agree with your observations.
> >
> > Firstly, you refer to a "Whiggish" view of history as being dominant.
> But
> > I
> > just don't see it (in far away Melbourne). The view of history that I
> see
> > in people who claim the mantle of conservatism who are calling the
> > political tune at the moment, is a very belittling and dismissive one.
> > These people seem willing to invent new Churches from scratch with no
> > regard whatsoever for the experience of millennia of Christianity,
> invent
> > new labour laws from the top of their head, without regard for how the
> > current systems are the way they are, set off on new Crusades without
> ever
> > having experienced war or thought about the lessons of past wars,
> abolish
> > age-old institutions willy nilly, and so on. It is more likely
> > progressives
> > like most of us on xmca who argue that institutions are like they are
> for
> > very good reasons. Honest conservatives, Whigs if you like, are scarce
> as
> > hen's teeth these days.
> >
> > Secondly, who thinks we are in the best of all possible worlds, "the
> crown
> > of creation" because that's the way it *has* to be? I think people
> > (especially maybe young people) who have actually never ever thought
> about
> > the way things are at all, never reflected on history at all, could be
> > imputed with this kind of view, if you believe in imputing views based
> on
> > things other than holding them. Of those who have a view about history
> and
> > the way things are, almost everyone seems to think things are in a bad
> way
> > and getting worse. In fact the very impossibility of even imagining that
> > things could ever improve and the ease of imagining a global disaster is
> > one of the biggest problems we have. It is, I think, people who claim
> that
> > "all the grand narratives have ended" and "people no longer believe in
> > progress" etc who are the most likely to believe that we now live in the
> > only grown-up stage of history.
> >
> > Thirdly, how adequate is the dichotomy between "political radicals and
> > political conservatives"? There is little "conservative" about people
> like
> > George Bush and Tony Blair. The people who advise them? Come on! These
> are
> > the people who make up history as they go along. The religious right? I
> > don't think so, these people are prepared to bring on a holocaust in the
> > hope that they will be saved.
> >
> > I accept that things are very different in different countries, and it's
> > hard to get an overview. What do you think?
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > At 07:47 PM 23/01/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Just to note that Peirce said a LOT about semiosis, using his many
> > >variations of the word (he liked Greek spelling), and it did make a big
> > >change, but a long time after he passed on.
> > >
> > >As to history, I've always started with the idea that if we know how we
> > >got where we are, we'd be rather likely to disagree with the choices
> (or
> > >necessities, or ideologies) of the past that got us here (since they
> > don't
> > >tend to stay constant all that long), and so we'd both want to change
> > >things and realize that there's no good reason (from our point of view
> > >today), why they had to turn out the way they now are.
> > >
> > >This historical subversiveness contrasts with a more dominant, often
> > >called "Whiggish", view of history, which tends, like old-fashioned
> > >apologist social functionalism, to claim that the way things are is the
> > >way they have to be, and that history teaches us the lessons we learned
> > >about why this is so. This is a variant of progressionist evolutionary
> > >theory, and the 19th century view, still quite alive if not among many
> > >evolutionary biologists, that all of evolution and all of history is
> one
> > >grand upward march to ... ME! Here we sit, at the crown of creation,
> in,
> > >if not the best of all possible worlds, at least a world that is as it
> is
> > >because by and large that's how it has to be. To which I say, most
> > >heartily ... bullshit!
> > >
> > >More kindly, these different perspectives on history (and their is a
> > >LITTLE truth in Whiggism ... a very little) are central to the divide
> > >between political radicals and political conservatives, left and right,
> > >which may change its colors and fashions, and programs, but has
> remained
> > >remarkably constant for an awfully long time. And it behooves us on the
> > >one side, I think, to have some understanding and appreciation for WHY
> > >some people are on the other side.
> > >
> > >We tend most often to say that they just follow their interests, even
> > >unconsciously, and no doubt in the large and the long term that's true
> > >enough (e.g. statistically, or ala Bourdieu's neo-Durkheimian survey
> > >research). But it's a mistake I think, and far too dangerously easy, to
> > >leave it at that. We need much deeper and better accounts of why
> > >conservatives believe the crazy things they do! because to them they
> are
> > >not crazy, but follow from a long tradition of well-developed arguments
> > >and what appears to them to be mountains of evidence.
> > >
> > >Conservatives attract many voters with their arguments, including many
> > >whose objective interests should not dispose them that way.
> > >
> > >A key reason why CHAT needs to re-invigorate its emphasis on the
> > >historical is just because we are contending against another view of
> > >history, one that is dangerous to everything we are working for, and
> > which
> > >needs to be faced with a vigorous and well-developed alternative view
> ...
> > >hopefully one that can prove its worth with contributions to practical
> > >problem solving and making the world others would just accept,
> different
> > >and better for more of us.
> > >
> > >JAY.
> > >
> > >At 08:51 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote:
> > >>This is one of the issues I find really interesting in action research
> -
> > >>how do you understand this redefintion. You change the understanding
> of
> > >>the relationship between espoused theory and theory in use (I'm using
> > >>Argyris' terminology here) through discussion and change in the way
> > >>individuals talk about their projects (is it an attempt to come to a
> > >>better match between theory in use and the way we talk about what we
> do)
> > >>- and I guess in the best of all possible worlds this will loop back
> and
> > >>change the way we talk about activity - so espoused theory becomes
> > closer
> > >>to theory in use. But when this change occurs, is it a move from
> > >>objectification and basis in history (and how the organization was
> > >>developed through history) to a more process oriented overall
> > >>understanding of activity. For those who believe the Peirce made a
> > >>qualitative change when he introduced the concept of semiosis (and
> let's
> > >>face it, it wasn't the most overwhelming introduction, maybe he only
> > used
> > >>the word a few times) - is it a movement towards a more Pragmaticist
> > >>based semiosis?
> > >>
> > >>Do we need to recognize history in an attempt to understand the
> problem
> > >>better. Jay makes a great point, why do we have forty minute periods,
> > >>why do we have nine month school schedules? It is because of history,
> > >>and we sort of know that history, or interpretations of that history -
> > >>but then how does it help us get closer to solving our problem. And
> if
> > >>we give primacy to history, doesn't this open the door to the argument
> > >>that the reason we do it this way is because of our history, and our
> > >>history got us here, so our history should play an important part in
> our
> > >>problem solving?
> > >>
> > >>Just some questions on a snowy Monday morning.
> > >>
> > >>Michael
> > >>
> > >>________________________________
> > >>
> > >>From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Jay Lemke
> > >>Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 2:40 PM
> > >>To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >>Subject: RE: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to SCHAT
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Action Research is about solving immediate problems, but one of its
> > >>strategies is to get people talking about what those problems really
> > >>are. In the course of which they often re-define the key problems as
> > >>being larger than their immediate symptoms. When you then start to
> > >>collaboratively investigate these bigger issues, you almost always
> > >>find that history has played a role in getting us into the mess we're
> > >>in. And that understanding how to get out of it often depends on
> > >>figuring out a way around the path that historically got us where we
> > are.
> > >>
> > >>Why are school classes only 40 minutes long? why are students
> > >>segregated by age in schools? why don't teacher-student relationships
> > >>in schools last more than a few months to less than one year? why are
> > >>curriculum subjects separated? why is curriculum content dictated to
> > >>be uniform? why do we use pencil-and-paper testing? why don't
> > >>students get to learn from non-teacher mentors? why can't I take my
> > >>students on a field trip outside the school? why can't they learn by
> > >>participating/observing in other institutions?
> > >>
> > >>Why can't we talk about the topics we're really interested in? why
> > >>can't we spend more than 2 weeks on this? why can't I learn basic
> > >>biology over 2 years instead of one? why can't we talk about human
> > >>sexuality? or famous gay figures in history? why can't we learn about
> > >>law, religion, economics, politics? why can't we discuss the causes
> > >>of violence in my neighborhood? Why don't I get paid for all the work
> > >>the school requires me to do?
> > >>
> > >>The causes of most social headaches are institutional and structural,
> > >>and the timescales across which we need to look to understand how
> > >>they came to cause our headaches expand in historical time as we
> > >>probe these networks of causes.
> > >>
> > >>Remember: give a man a fish, he eats today; teach him to fish, he
> > >>eats tomorrow too? Action research, and the CHAT perspective, is
> > >>about learning new ways to eat, about looking across longer relevant
> > >>timescales for alternatives and solutions, not about eating the first
> > >>fish to come our way (though if you're really hungry, why not?).
> > >>
> > >>JAY.
> > >>
> > >>PS. Short-term solutions can give us the breathing space to seek
> > >>longer-term ones. But they can also exacerbate longer-term problems,
> > >>or disguise them until they get even worse.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>At 01:30 PM 1/21/2007, you 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 problem 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Jay Lemke
> > >>Professor
> > >>University of Michigan
> > >>School of Education
> > >>610 East University
> > >>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> > >>
> > >>Tel. 734-763-9276
> > >>Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> > >>Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>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
> > >
> > >
> > >Jay Lemke
> > >Professor
> > >University of Michigan
> > >School of Education
> > >610 East University
> > >Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> > >
> > >Tel. 734-763-9276
> > >Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> > >Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory
> -
> > Resisting Neoconservatism Today
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-- Deborah Downing-Wilson _______________________________________________ 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