Re: [xmca] CHAT-AR: Seth's Table

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Mary/Andy--

Right, Mary. One has to include the question WHOSE moral imperative.

Do you think that the issue of who initiates interaction is relevant?

Andy-- Your comment about needing to know what an activity is in AT terms in
order to engage in joint activity among groups of the sort contemplated here
puzzles me. Why?

Mike

PS- Locally we have been using the term, ,"observant participation" to
characterize involvement with the folks we work among and with.



On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> In my view Mary, this brings us to confront what "an activity" is.
> Andy
>
>
> Mary van der Riet wrote:
>
>> The ‘participation’ component of PAR (participatory ACTION RESEARCH) is
>> what intrigues me. Emphasis on participation  was a result of  criticism
>> of approaches in development and rural agricultural research by the
>> World Bank and IMF which was extractive and ultimately exploitative.
>> They used approaches such as Rapid Rural Appraisal, which also developed
>> into Participatory Rural Appraisal. Robert Chambers has a book called
>> ‘Putting the last first’ and a chapter entitled ‘Whose knowledge?’.
>> Both of these highlight the moral imperative behind participatory
>> research approaches.
>> But for me what is lacking in these approaches is a theorization of what
>> ‘participation’ does, how it is the cornerstone of change on individual
>> and social levels. I think that is what Vygotsky and CHAT approaches
>> (and DWR in particular) add to PAR etc., a way of understanding how it
>> is that participative processes are so significant in bringing about
>> social change. A moral imperative is not enough to ensure change.
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> 05/16/11 04:19 AM >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I think Vygotsky's absence of concern for ownership of a collaborative
>> research project arose from what we would see today as a naive acceptance of
>> the Soviet Union as the inheritor a popular revolution. I am sure he knew
>> better, but it seems to have been a working assumption. It meant that he
>> could see himself as a participant in that revolution, exercising popular
>> agency. It doesn't look like that to us in historical
>>
>> retrospect and few of us on this list see it that way here and now.
>>
>> I have to say that we I first got interested in this stuff I saw it that
>>
>> way (like LSV). My activism was as an elected trade union representative
>>
>> and thinking about what I was doing was one of the responsibilities of
>> that role. So also was maintaining a high level of participation in and
>> commitment to the work. Things have changed, both in the world outside and
>> my relation to it, and I now take these questions to be as relevant to me as
>> they were to those academic researchers who would interview me as a subject
>> years ago.
>>
>> But apart from many experiences with change consultants brought in by
>> successive managers, I really know nothing of Lewin and AR or Mondragon,
>>
>> so I can't help with this issue any further, other than to affirm that I
>>
>> now believe that the dynamics of collaboration are a central problem for
>>
>> psychology, maybe even *the* central problem, and this question rightly
>> deserves attention. It tends to be hidden until class divisions or
>> neo-liberal atomisation of society, puts collaboration into relief
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> mike cole wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am still trying to figure out the issue of theory and methodology in
>>>
>>>
>> this
>>
>>
>>> CHAT-AR discussion but in the meantime, I am would like to know
>>>
>>>
>> other's
>>
>>
>>> views of Figure 3
>>> in Seth's article.  Here is what I could capture from the pdf. (Hey!
>>>
>>>
>> It
>>
>>
>>> worked!!).
>>> "Proposition" refers to a set of analytic characteristics that Seth
>>>
>>>
>> uses to
>>
>>
>>> compare Lewin and Vygotsky. I raise questions below.
>>>
>>> Proposition
>>>
>>>               Lewin
>>> Vygotsky
>>>
>>> 1. Direct consideration of improvement of
>>>
>>> societal practice
>>>                            +     + ?
>>>
>>> 2. Necessary to intervene into societal practices
>>>                                     +     +
>>>
>>> 3. Explicit attention to societal values used
>>>  O    O
>>>
>>> 4. Part of being objective is to consider
>>>
>>> societal values and interests
>>>                                                                    O
>>>
>>  O
>>
>>
>>> 5. Advocacy and objectivity
>>>                                                                    O
>>>
>>  O
>>
>>
>>> 6. Distinction between “basic” and
>>>
>>> “applied” is meaningless
>>>
>>>
>>  +
>>
>>
>>> +
>>>
>>> *Note. *+ indicates concordance; ? indicates uncertainty; O indicates
>>> absence.
>>>
>>> I want to focus on propositions 3,4,5. I think that they might provide
>>>
>>>
>> a
>>
>>
>>> rough pointer
>>> towards some of the differences that appear to exist between different
>>>
>>>
>> forms
>>
>>
>>> of research that claims some relation to some form off action
>>>
>>>
>> research.
>>
>>
>>> 3 and 4 are closely related in that both presuppose that there is more
>>>
>>>
>> than
>>
>>
>>> one social value and interest to be considered. Neither LSV nor Lewin,
>>>
>>>
>> it
>>
>>
>>> seems, attended to these issues explicitly. Then, of course, they
>>>
>>>
>> would not
>>
>>
>>> pay explicit attention to advocacy.
>>>
>>> I believe that in general people who participate in this discussion
>>>
>>>
>> assume
>>
>>
>>> that there are in fact multiple societies in Society, we would point
>>>
>>>
>> to
>>
>>
>>> socioeconomic class as fundamental, but however we do it, we would
>>>
>>>
>> argue
>>
>>
>>> that those "for whom" the research is being done are not members of a
>>>
>>>
>> single
>>
>>
>>> society with a single set of values and a single set of criteria of
>>>
>>>
>> virtue.
>>
>>
>>> So we MUST raises these issues.
>>>
>>> When we do, the issue of agency jumps in our face.  Whose interests
>>>
>>>
>> are
>>
>>
>>> being served here, given that there are different social groupings
>>>
>>>
>> involved?
>>
>>
>>> Who gets to decide what gets remembered out of these encounters and
>>>
>>>
>> who does
>>
>>
>>> not?
>>>
>>> When conducting joint research with Soviet colleagues in the 1980's I
>>> learned that the question of who initiates a proposed collaborative
>>>
>>>
>> project
>>
>>
>>> is a central concern in human interaction.  At the diplomatic level,
>>>
>>>
>> my
>>
>>
>>> Soviet colleagues did all they could to be sure that it was the
>>>
>>>
>> Americans
>>
>>
>>> who initiated any interaction. Why? Because they could go to their
>>>
>>>
>> bosses
>>
>>
>>> and say, "We have been asked to engage in these activities, what
>>>
>>>
>> should we
>>
>>
>>> do?" Once they were told to do what they wanted to do in the first
>>>
>>>
>> place,
>>
>>
>>> the could perceive. They were absolved of the crime of exerting
>>>
>>>
>> agency.
>>
>>
>>> When working with local communities, the balancing of responsibility
>>>
>>>
>> for the
>>
>>
>>> joint activity is an ongoing and major concern. I take Yrjo's focus on
>>>
>>>
>> the
>>
>>
>>> method of dual stimulation in the Change Lab as a way of providing the
>>> "other" (postal workers, medical workers, etc.) with agency.... to
>>>
>>>
>> become
>>
>>
>>> their instrument.
>>>
>>> I like the phrase I learned from Olga Vasquez, "reciprocal relations
>>>
>>>
>> of
>>
>>
>>> exchange." Sounds like the definition of non-profit capitalism, but
>>>
>>>
>> when one
>>
>>
>>> achieves such reciprocity, good things happen.
>>>
>>> What do others think about the absence of these concerns shared by
>>>
>>>
>> Vygotsky
>>
>>
>>> and Lewin that we do not, I am surmising, share with them? (Judging
>>>
>>>
>> from
>>
>>
>>> Seth's account.)
>>>
>>> mike
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA:
> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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