judy's comments on ch5 include
>The 3rd dimension of analysis is "actual-empirical" performed on the
>models
>"professed and actually used" by the participants -- YE recommends
>analyzing each at all three levels of AT and as *declarative conceptions;
>*procedural performances; *social discourses; *communicational networks;
>and *organizational structures. That's a lot of analysis. And it should be
>done "with the help" of historical analysis anbd the 'five general
>historical models" that I haven't yet mentioned :)
>prototypes; classificatory models; procedural models; systemic models;
>germ
>cell models.
if, as you note, the practical-empirical research practice is dominant in
social science activity, (SIGH), then - it would seem - looking at the
most useful kinds of research in this particular realm has to include the
value of longitudinal research: the short-term in-and-out
'wham-bam-thank-you-research-subject' approach produces absolutely nothing
in terms of progress or relevance for education: longitudinal projects, on
the other hand, have the opportunity to
participate in the historical process of activity, n'est pas? relying on
many kinds of analysis over a longer period of time, it seems to me, makes
far more sense to the production of useful information in education or
health care,
- certainly, this is the case when seeking valuable research findings -
more researchers participating for longer periods of time would be a
useful application of this particular CH-AT approach, perhaps? it doesn't
strike me as a "method" that is easily reduced to the short-term
solo-researcher activity.
perhaps what needs to change here is the researchers' approaches to
conducting research activity. ?? perhaps? or is it intolerable to think
that many academics can work together in a large research project?
you wrote:
>An important result of the analyses is or should be the definition of an
>"object-unit" in any developmental phase. The 'object unit" is the slice
>of
>the object that is handled by the subject at particular moments; tracing
>the object-unit shows how the object is transformed from raw material to
>product and it foregrounds the relations of individual actions to the
>whole
>activity. But most important, the aim is not a detached analysis by the
>researcher but the involved recognition by the participants of the
>secondary contradiction within their activity. It is to 'midwife' / bring
>about a double bind at the level of the activity system. This I see as the
>key to LBE, and a very tricky key it seems to me.
and
>
>What I find troubling/ confusing is that so much depends on the external
>analyst, including the development of a meta-discourse. Politically, I
>would prefer to imagine the analysis and development of modeling tools as
>more 'bottom up' or at least more collaborative. I am also wary of claims
>for 'reflective communication' at the level of activity. My guess is that
>the 'intersubjectivity' supposedly realized here would disintegrate under
>a
>semiotic analysis.
but perhaps, if indeed "
>the aim is not a detached analysis by the
>researcher but the involved recognition by the participants of the
>secondary contradiction within their activity
..."
then this: "
>What I find troubling/ confusing is that so much depends on the external
>analyst, including the development of a meta-discourse.
" might be challenged by the involved recognition of the participants?
doesn't this part of the activity provide the language/meanings that are
cultivated in the process of recognition? might not this language form the
basis of the research activity, in terms of what is happening - not to
impose interpretations but to assume the reflections of the participants
are the basis of the activity's meaning and significance?
perhaps the development of a meta-discourse is a concern of the
researcher, but not specifically constructing the activity that is being
wondered about? meta-discourses can be provided as appendices,
attachments, but don't specifically have to structure the meaning
expressed by the activity's participants? is that possible? to
differentiate the "researcher-activity" as a relation with university
traditions,
and the understandings sought in the 'activity-activity' as something
distinct from researcher-university structures?
again, researchers working together have a greater opportunity to
construct the connections required here without contorting what might yet
be learned - that is, surely the researcher experiences a process of
expansion, in order to understand what the activity is revealing -
as you note, the research-activity is, itself, an historical activity that
connects with the activity being "studied" or observed - including this in
the analysis might even be a revelation to research of this kind, instead
of a further barricade of faux-scientific resistance...
good questions there judith.
thanks for the ideas and comments.
diane
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:05 PDT