Re: [xmca] Activity theory and qualitative research

Dear Elina
thank you for your response. I wonder if it possible to obtain some of
the papers presented at the fora you mention ie 2007 AERA and 2008
AERA?
And would it be possible to see your presentation that you are giving
at the 'Methodology and methods' conference?
regards
Mary

Mary van der Riet; School of Psychology; University of KwaZulu-Natal
Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209

email: vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za
tel: 033 260 6163; fax: 033 2605809

>>> "Elina Lampert-Shepel" <ellampert@gmail.com> 2008/11/20 09:34 AM
>>>
Mary and Mike,
 I have been interested in this theme for quite a long time. Mary, you
raise
some important issues. I organized 2007 AERA symposium on exactly the
same
topic and the presentations were fascinating. Martin Parker organized
AERA
symposium on CHAT as a research methodology in 2008. I am now at
Vygotskian
Russian Institute of Pscyhology participating in the conference on
*Methodology
and methods of psychological research (cultural-historical aspect)* and
it
has been already three days we were discusing various issues related
to
cultural-historical methodology as well as research methodology that
is
grounded on it.

There is a lot to say, but I need to come back to New York before I
can
fully participate in the discussion. In my presentation I tried to
explore
various form of relationships between cultural-historical psychology
and
focused most of all on their complementarity. I would argue
that cultural-historical psychology has been used mainly as a
theoretical
framework in qualitative research rather than research methodology.
To be continued,
Elina

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mary--
>
> Your note come at a time when a professor and group of students in
Bogota,
> Columbia, are, among other things, asking the same questions.
>
> The topic seems so worthwhile of systematic co-reading and discussion
in
> order to create significant common ground that it seems unlikely we
can get
> a mutually satisfying grip on the issues in the helter-skelter of
XMCA. But
> we could create, within the existing XMCA framework, a focused
> discussion on this topic which always had the same header and where
> participants agreed to read together, discuss together, even do
interactive
> video discussions together.
>
> It has worked in the past and our facilities are stronger, so it can
work
> again.
>
> I have written some on this issue and my very short answer is that
> depending
> upon the purposes of the research, both what are considered
qualitative and
> quantitative methods
> (under at least some of the desiderata that different people
> focus on when discussing qualitative research) are appropriate within
a
> chat
> framework.
>
> An example I use is one where we start with fieldnotes written by
> undergraduates. On the basis of those notes we
> are able to identify/classify/count various kinds of events
> involving characteristic behaviors and artifacts. We then
> can provide interesting evidence (quantitative) to justify claims for
a
> particular designed environment as increasing,
> relative to relevant contrasting situation, behaviors we had hoped
to
> foster. But then, we also see trends (say, by age)
> in the frequency of some one(s) of those countable categories and we
are
> driven back to the fieldnotes because the categories "lied." They
lumped
> together variations which,
> as a first pass, we could pass over, but which we were pushed back to
at a
> later stage.
>
> In so far as CHAT is interested in developmental transformations, and
in so
> far as the term, "developmental transformation" involves qualitative
> variation, what would it mean to exclude qualitative methods? If it
is
> claimed that the use of the change laboratory has effects desired by
postal
> workers in Helsinki, what would it mean if there was no quantitative
> evidence that they had achieved goals that were a part of the
strategies
> they had decided to implement, a process which is itself a process
of
> qualitative change?? Sure as hell their managers are going to do
some
> counting.
>
> The above is by way of an unsatisfactory answer and a call for those
who
> have serious common interests in such complex problems to coordinate
in an
> effective manner to make headway on obtaining answers that they
found
> productive according to their local criteria
> mike
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Mary van der Riet
<vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za
> >wrote:
>
> > Activity theory as emblematic of qualitative research?
> >
> > I have a question. Many studies which use cultural-historical
activity
> > theory, do not explicitly identify a research design or paradigm
(this
> > might be because activity theory operates on both methodological
and
> > method levels, but that is another issue)
> >
> > I have been trying to draw out some of the links between the
qualitative
> > research paradigm and 'activity theory'. There are elements of
this
> > methodology that draw on different dimensions of qualitative
research
> > and could be said to have allegiances to different
paradigms/positions
> > and practices within the qualitative approach (interpretive,
> > hermeneutic, grounded theory, social constructionist).
> > Perhaps you have some ideas?
> >
> > Broadly, qualitative research is defined (in the classic
approaches) as
> >
> > * an open-ended and inductive exploration of a phenomenon, rather
than
> > providing causal explanations (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
> > * having a concern with making sense of/obtaining an understanding
of,
> > human experience,
> > * broadly 'interpretivist' – this means:
> > * assuming that people's subjective experiences, the meaning these
> > experiences have for them, and thus their representation of
reality, can
> > and should be a focus of study (Kvale, 1996).
> > * and that it is a search for a detailed, 'thick description'
(Geertz,
> > 1973), of these experiences.
> > * and assuming that an understanding of human experience requires
a
> > contextual approach (Schwandt, 1994; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005); that
the
> > 'meaning' of a phenomenon is indexical, and thus human experiences
> > need to be explored and examined in context, as they are lived.
This, in
> > part, means understanding the social, linguistic and historical
features
> > which shape human phenomena (Kelly 2006).
> >
> > [this bit seems to have the most synergies with CHAT – but I
don't
> > think it is meant in this way i.e. that there is a dialectical
> > interaction between social and individual 'levels of analysis']
> >
> > And what about the 'critique' of the situated perspective which
> > predominates in ethnographic approaches? This is articulated as
follows:
> > * there is a need to move beyond describing and 'understanding'
human
> > experience in situ. Kelly (1994) argues that the participant,
embedded
> > in his or her reality, perspective and context, does not possesses
the
> > perspective necessary to provide a comprehensive account of an
> > experience or phenomenon. There is thus a need to provide an
account of
> > a phenomenon which exceeds the self-understanding of the
participants, a
> > distanciated account (Kelly, 2006). Thus description alone, and a
> > description in the participants' words, is insufficient for an
> > explanation of a phenomenon. There is a need to provide an
elaboration,
> > or expansion, of the participant's account.
> >
> > And what of the social constructionist perspective: which argues,
> > drawing on Terre Blanche, Kelly and Durrheim (2006), that
participants'
> > thoughts, feelings and experiences are products of systems of
meaning at
> > a social level (Terre Blanche et al, 2006). Constructionist
research is
> > about "interpreting the social world as a kind of language; that
is, as
> > a system of meanings and practices that construct reality" (p.280)
These
> > "everyday actions or images create and maintain" the world in which
we
> > live (Terre Blanche et al, 2006, p.280). They argue that
interpreting
> > this social world means understanding and examining this system of
> > meanings, these representations of reality, practices, and
physical
> > arrangements which "construct particular versions of the world by
> > providing a framework or system through which we can understand
objects
> > and practices as well as understand who we are and what we should
do in
> > relation to these systems" (ibid, p.282). When we act, they argue,
what
> > we achieve is to "reproduce the ruling discourses of out time and
> > re-enact established relational patterns" (p.282).
> >
> > Is Activity Theory just a social constructionist approach? It
might
> > emphasize the historical trajectory ofand dilemmas, but it seems to
be
> > essentially concerned with the same
> > thing.
> >
> > Has anybody been writing about this?
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mary van der Riet; School of Psychology; University of
KwaZulu-Natal
> > Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209
> >
> > email: vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za
> > tel: 033 260 6163; fax: 033 2605809
> >
> > Please find our Email Disclaimer here:
http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

-- 
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
                          - William Blake
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu 
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca