I agree with Merja Helle about the varieties of action research and would
add to that
the variety of chat-inspired research.
With respect to Kevin's statement: Action research involves the
practitioner in researching
his/her/their own practices whether for ongoing improvement or for other
social action/change. The CHAT framework has certainly been applied by
folks studying other people's actions, not necessarily their own.
Perhaps "not necessarily their own" is correct, but there are certainly many
chat inspired works
that analyze the actions of the researchers as well as others. This is true
in work at LCHC routinely,
both the playworld research and the work involving the 5th Dimension.
Also, its been 20 years since the work cited in the Engestrom quotation. A
lot has changed in that time
methodologically.
Excellent topic. Collecting a set of examples could prove interesting.
Perhaps Merhe Helle can send along her paper for discussion when done.
mike
On 1/13/07, Merja Helle <Merja.Helle@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
> elaine
>
> very interesting question.
> first of all there are several versions of action research (see peter
> reason
> (ed.) handbookof action research)
> there is no explicit article defining the difference between
> engeström's/the
> centers use of activity theory in change laboratories and action research
> or its scandinavian version of democratic dialogue.
> the method of change laboratory is described in many articles some of
> which
> can be found on the center's website at
> www.helsinki.fi/edu/activity.
> i have an article in preparation based on a conference paper from some
> years
> ago. the paper is very preliminary but if you want to look at it (and make
> suggestions for improvement) i could send it.
>
> one of the central differences is the use of theory/researchers to
> generate
> new knowledge for laboratory discussions. some other include the use of
> the
> concept of triangle, disturbances, contradictions. change laboratories
> also
> include ethnograhic observations and data gathering for discussions in the
> changel laboratory.
> also the cultural historical changes, material artefacts, the clients and
> the generation of a new object for the work and tools for its
> accomplishment
> are central in change laboratories.
>
> argyris conducts his research with upper or middle managers, not e.g. on
> the
> shopfloor.
>
> merja
>
> merja helle
> head of research, mediaconcept laboratory
> IADE
> email: merja.helle@helsinki.fi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Kevin Rocap <Kevin.Rocap@liu.edu>:
>
> > Dear Elaine,
> >
> > Hi! You pose some interesting things to consider. I can suggest what I
> >
> > think are a few clarifications (perhaps distinctions, perhaps not ;-)).
> >
> > (1) Action research involves the practitioner in researching
> > his/her/their own practices whether for ongoing improvement or for other
> >
> > social action/change. The CHAT framework has certainly been applied by
> > folks studying other people's actions, not necessarily their own.
> >
> > (2) While CHAT provides some theories of action, object, tool use,
> > interrelations, I'm not sure I'd characterize it as inherently
> > "activist" which I think is more in the hands of whomever is making use
> > of the CHAT framework.
> >
> > (3) A CHAT framework could certainly be used by practitioner-researchers
> >
> > within their own action research activity and might help them understand
> >
> > and/or comment upon diverse tools, objects/intents/purposes, contexts,
> > etc. of their own researched practice, imho.
> >
> > (4) Action Science referenced by Engestrom is very specfiic and does not
> >
> > layout the same range of variables for consideration (i.e., the various
> > points on the triangle in the case of CHAT). The primary focus from my
> > prior experience studying action science with Chris Argyris is that the
> > focus is on talk among actors in an organization and how that frames,
> > organizes, coordinates and provides a window into their commitments,
> > attitudes, and behaviors (whether Model I or Model II in the Argyris
> > typology). True their talk may have to, at key points, be
> > compared/contrasted with their non-verbal behaviors (yet without real
> > frameworks regarding ways to assess those behaviors per se), but verbal
> > behaviors were always the primary focus in my short experience (maybe
> > the presumption is that much of corporate behavior hinges on talk ;-)).
> >
> > My two cents.
> >
> > In Peace,
> > K.
> >
> >
> >
> > Elaine Mateus wrote:
> > > Dear All,
> > > There has been a recurrent issue among some of my brazilian peers
> > regarding differences and/or similarities between action-research and
> the
> > CHAT methodological framing. I'm also uncertain about this matter as I
> > read Kemmis, for example, saying that:
> > >
> > > In my view, critical or emancipatory action research is always
> > connected to social action: it always understands itself as a concrete
> > and practical expression of the aspiration to change the social (or
> > educational) world for the better through improving shared social
> > practices, our shared understandings of these social practices, and the
> > shared situations in which these practices are carried out. It is thus
> > always critical, in the sense that it is about relentlessly trying to
> > understand and improve the way things are in relation to how they could
> > be better. But it is also critical in the sense that it is activist: it
> > aims at creating a form of collaborative learning by doing (in which
> > groups of participants set out to learn from change in a process of
> > making changes, studying the process and consequences of these changes,
> > and trying again). It aims to help people understand themselves as the
> > agents, as well as the products, of history. In my view, action research
> > is also committed to spreading involvement and participation in the
> > research process. (Kemmis, 1993 http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n1.html)
> > >
> > > On the other hand, Engestrom and his colleagues in "The discursive
> > construction of collaborative care" (2003 :433), say that:
> > >
> > > For example, one might ask what is the difference between our work and
> > the 'action science' practiced by Chris Argyris and his colleagues
> > (Argyris & al., 1985). Action science is aimed at making practitioners
> > aware of the persistent and often harmful 'single-loop' mechanisms in
> > their talk and interaction. However, in action science literature, we
> > don't learn much about how the practitioners actually change their
> > practices, or what new tools and organizational structures they develop
> > and adopt.
> > >
> > > Can someone suggest further readings so that we can have a better
> > understanding on this issue?
> > > Thanks
> > > Elaine Mateus
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> **********************************************************
> Merja Helle
> Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research
> University of Helsinki
> Address: 00014 University of Helsinki
> Finland
> phone:+358 (0)50-4485 111
> email: merja.helle@helsinki.fi
>
> ************************************************************
> "You don't the know the facts before you know the fiction"
> _______________________________________________
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:32 PST