Andy,
Just so I understand:
When you asked Anna Sfard about "unit of analysis", you were trying to get
her to make her assumptions explicit about the practice/method of using the
"unit of analysis" in psychology as a science. Vygotsky's use of this term
is appropriate in the larger discourse of psychology at the time, isn't it?
I wouldn't say a historical accident, but rather as he is participating in a
scientific discourse with logical argument it is likely that his word choice
is deliberate. What do you mean by the following statement, "Not many
people, even in the history of CHAT, do"?
Just following along this very interesting thread.
Thanks,
Monica
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 12:20 AM
To: annasfar@math.msu.edu
Cc: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
Subject: Re: [xmca] discourse and unit
OK, having taken the time to read what you say, you are quite explicit
then. You don't agree with the method of analysis by units, in the sense
that Vygotsky used the term. Which is fine. Not many people, even in the
history of CHAT, do.
Andy
anna sfard wrote:
Andy,
You seem to imply a unit must be a part of a greater whole, perhaps even
an
invisible part, as is the case for molecules or cells. While I don't see
invisibility ("see invisibility"? well, you know what I mean) as a
defining
property of unit of analysis, I do believe that being a part of something
bigger is a useful characteristic. The discourses I named are all
irreducible parts, at least for me, of the greater whole which is our
communicational activity - our thinking. The discourses I named are
irreducible in that when you look at their separate elements (e.g., words
or
concepts), the effect is exactly like in the case of looking at single
atoms
inside a molecule: you lose the ties/relations to the other atoms and the
gestalt is gone.
And now, I'm afraid, I must be gone. My immediate non-virtual community
makes sounds of being annoyed with my unexpected departure (whereas xmca
community may be annoyed with my intensive - all too intensive - presence
in
these last few days, for which I'm asking its forgiveness).
anna
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 8:53 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [xmca] discourse and unit
The answer to my question, Anna, is that you just don't see
the word
"unit". Let's look at the whole of that Vygotsky quote
(apologies to
David and Martin for using the Minnick translation):
"In our view, an entirely different form of analysis is
fundamental
to further development of theories of thinking and
speech. This form
of analysis relies on the partitioning of the complex
whole into
/units/. In contrast to the term 'element', the term 'unit'
designates a product of analysis that possesses /all the
basic
characteristics of the whole/. The unit is a vital and
irreducible
part of the whole. The key to the explanation of the
characteristics
of water lies not in the investigation of its chemical
formula but
in the investigation of its molecular movements. In
precisely the
same sense, the living cell is the real unit of
biological analysis
because it preserves the basic characteristics of life
that are
inherent in the living organism." (Vygotsky 1986)
My problem with what you say, Anna, is that I can't see
"discourse" as
an irreducible part, "cell" or "molecule," to be contrasted
with the
whole. I always took discourse to be a whole, or a Gestalt
which, if not
a whole , then a holistic element of a wider life which
includes
discourse as an aspect. But not a unit.
Andy
anna sfard wrote:
Here is how Vygotsky answers your question, Andy, after stating that
"word
meaning [concept] is [his] unit of analysis":
"'unit' is a product of analysis that possesses *all* the basic
properties
of the whole" (T&S, 1987, p. 46, emphasis in the original).
And he famously illustrated this definition by speaking about the mistake
one makes when using too small a unit of analysis and trying to tell
properties of water by investigating the properties of oxygen and
hydrogen.
In my own words, the word "unit", when used in the context of the
expression
"unit of analysis" is the smallest aggregate of phenomena I need to
consider
in my research to be able to say anything really helpful/useful and
trustworthy.
I'm not sure what to make of your " historical accident, or a mistake, or
simply a trivial thing". Why should unit of analysis be any of those?
Could
you, please, extend the set of possible choices buy adding, say, a
rational
decision (that is, a decision made for an articulable reason).
Oh,.. now I can see, I think. You don't like the traditional divisions
which
I seemed to be making while speaking about mathematical discourse,
scientific discourse, political discourse... You even asked whether my
unit
of analysis is the same thing as "subject matter". Ok, so no, i'm talking
about *discourses*, which is ontologically quite different than the
(underdefined) "subject matter". And why the "disciplinary" division?
Because these discourses display the kind of inner cohesiveness (not
necessarily in the Halliday's sense of the word cohesiveness) - in their
word use, in their routines and meta-rules, in visual mediators, in their
narratives - that make them stand out as obvious units of analysis. Or,
to
put it differently, when I start with a word, such as "number", and am
trying to investigate as much of its uses as necessary to see anything of
importance, I invariably end up, whether I want it or not, with looking
at
the whole of formal and informal) numerical *discourse*, in any of its
developmental versions.
Did I mange to make myself understandable?
Anna
PS. Of course, you may go on and ask what I mean by "the whole" of a
discourse. The boundaries are blurry, and I don't really mean I am
checking
every piece of this rather elusive entity. But I do as far as necessary,
never excluding in advance anything that may be deemed as belonging to a
discourse in question.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 4:22 AM
To: annasfar@math.msu.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] activity and reification
Anna, no-one took this up, but let me pursue it nonetheless.
I said I think we disagreee about what Vygotsky meant by "unit of
analysis."
You concluded your third message in this exchange:
"...to speak about it as the use of word in discourse (not just a
single act, Andy; rather, a discursive activity with the word) ...
discourse (understood as a specific type of communication) is what
may usefully be taken as a unit of analysis in developmental (and,
obviously, historical) studies."
Leaving all other issues aside (I actually agree with most of what you
said
in this message in response to Martin), what do you make of the word
"unit"
in the term "unit of analysis"? Do you see it as a kind of historical
accident, or a mistake, or simply a trivial thing? I take it seriously,
you
see.
Do you see what I am getting at Anna? You seem to use the term to mean
"subject matter."
Andy