Re: [xmca] Seth Chaiklin on LSV and Lewin (was Unconstrained choices and a proposal)

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

On 24 April 2011 10:48, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since MCA is now open in its entirety, at least for another week, how about
> we start by discussing the action research/chat articles?
>
> The one with the most votes by a short margin is by Seth Chaiklin on LSV
> and
> Lewin,
> a topic i know many are interested in, so i suggest we start there.
>

Here are some of my thoughts on reading this paper.

Although the best use of a science of social intervention is to regulate
that social intervention, the formula of "give guidance to social
intervention" seems too narrow to describe the full purpose.  I would agree
that this is how it achieves it's viability, however the influences upon
this practice must be much wider, with the freedom to explore avenues not
directly related to particular instances of social intervention.  In other
words I think it is necessary but not sufficient.

It seems to me that Lewin, depicted in this article, is taking an approach
in line with operations research, or the establishment and regulation of
policies ("the main purpose of social research is to give guidance to those
who want to make improvements in societal practices").  The only issue I
have with this is that one successful policy does not necessarily relate to
another.  i.e. this seems to constitute a hill climbing approach, which does
not assess the approach taken as a whole (e.g. reinforcement of political
approaches).  This is confirmed, for me, in consideration of the following
sentence which hinges on the word "only":

"This potentially important requirement for social scientific research
raises a challenge to the validity of a principle of free exploration of
phenomena, guided only by curiosity."

Whereby when we consider (particular instances of) curiosity as a
manifestation of relevant activity not expressed in the ongoing practice
that may lead to better guidance of the practice as a whole.  Curiosity is
not arbitrary.  I do not think it is correct to say that LSV was not
curiosity (or intuitively) driven in his approach.

Regarding "engaging with societal practices" these also seem to be focusing
upon different phenomena:  society and the individual in society.  In his
work on "intervening" in, and theorising about, learning activities of
children these are surely "engaging with societal practices" albeit in a
different way to what we might usually think of as normative practices in
normative society.

Huw
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca