Hi All— I had hoped to get some feedback from the editors of the special
issue on AR and CHAT in a message I started a couple of nights ago. Too much
jet lag! I fear I left them simply confused, so I am trying again.
Anyway, I think that it is useful to read the introduction to the special
issue when reading specific articles such as Seth Chaiklin’s, which is
number one in line for discussion.
Bridget and Morten, the editors, tell us that the special issue set out "to
explore in what sense CHAT and AR can be said to be a method*/*methodology."
They note that there is controversy on this point and differences that are
associated with the allegiances of the reviewers to AR of CHAT ("There was
other evidence that what is signified by the terms “method” and
“methodology” is unclear because, during the production of the Call for
Papers, it emerged that the editors of MCA had a preference for using the
term “method,” whereas AR authors would use the term “methodology.”)
Yrjo provoked controversy at the ISCAR symposium where this special issue
had its origins. Bridget and Morten write that “ Yrjo Engeström expressed
the view that AR is “not a (coherent) method” and “certainly not a viable
substitute for a methodology genuinely built on CHAT,” an opinion that was
contested by several members of the audience.”
Somewhere in my training, well after I had first become involved with
European ideas about, I came to believe that methodology refers roughly to
the principled set of methods that one uses to interrogate one’s theory. So,
I have tended to make a distinction between method and methodology. In our
current interventionist methodology, we use a variety of methods to explore
the objects our analysis, process of socio - culturally organized human
development.
I am curious about the editor’s own views about this matter, but expressed
myself badly when writing to them. I think the matter is important in
dealing with Seth’s article and all the others because it seems like the
terms methodology and method are being used in variable ways, and I cannot
parse which uses are occurring when.
You can see what I mean when you read Seth’s text which is interesting on
many levels which Huw and Eric have started to discuss. There we encounter
phrases where methodology=creation of a general science, methodology=general
conceptual foundations. In a quote from Vygotsky he writes “Method means
‘way’ we view it as a means of knowledge acquisition. But in all its points
the way is determined by the goal to which it leads. (But we are manifestly
studying activities, so method seems linked to the level of actions, which
may in fact be a real insight).
At one point, Seth writes that “Lewin and Vygotsky put forward some
important methodological arguments about the relation of social scientific
research in relation to societal practice.” I could not figure out what
methodological meant here.
There are many issues raised in Seth’s article of direct personal interest
to me and to which I hope the discussion will draw our attention. But I
would like to suggest that in making AR/CHAT comparisons (Lewin being a
fascinating initial player on the AR side) we keep the question of methods
and methodologies in mind. It might help us sharpen our understanding of the
relation between the two approaches to socio-cultural-historical inquiry.
Again, my apologies to the editors for my fumbling attempt to get these
ideas out and thanks for their hard work in putting this symposium together
for us all.
mike
Attachment:
chatar1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca