And even the so-called "scientifically-based research" espouses looking for
practice-based evidence and practice-based outcomes as the only ground
on which to draw conclusions of effectiveness and efficacy.
Kevin, I would say that outside of Pragmatism, action research and CHAT that most scientific exploration does not give practice primacy. Most research in the social sciences has preconceived notions it seems to me about what you are going to find if you run an experiment and this guides everything. In others words it doesn't start with a real world problem and attempt to find a solution, but starts with hypothesis about the way humans act and looks to prove that hypothesis. As I've heard so many times, if you are looking to prove something, there's a pretty good chance that you are going to prove it. This is reinforced by the idea that in much research if you don't find what you are looking for you have to throw it out - no publications, no nothing. I would say most research actually falls in to Model I, the idea that there are espoused theories about the way humans act, and then the attempts to solve the problem through theory-in-use is delimited, not because the espoused theory is better, but because if you don't find something within the espoused theory you have no cultural capital with any group and therefore no place to publish. Isn't this what action research is claiming is wrong with most problem solving in organizations? The critical issue I think is giving the practice primacy - focusing on the idea that it is finding the solution to the problem that is critical and not proving something (because then proving something becomes more critical than the solution).
At the same time I am not all that comfortable with Model II and the double feedback loop. I mean what is being suggested is that practice is able to double back and change espoused theory, is able to change the way the organization is set up. But the next problem is going to be different from the current problem, so I wonder if you run in to the problem of having an organization that is attempting to fight yesterday's war.
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Kevin Rocap
Sent: Sat 1/13/2007 5:37 PM
To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] CHAT and action-research
Dear Mike,
I agree, yet think the bridge perhaps needs to be stronger or different
if we're looking for some situated connectedness among CHAT, action
research and/or action science, no? Whether we think other methods,
approaches do it well or not, don't most educational and social science
approaches somehow privilege practice for testing and/or developing
theory? (again, with my caveat that we may not think they all do it
well). Grounded Theory comes to mind as a methodology. Various
qualitative/ethnographic approaches seek to privilege practice, no? And
even the so-called "scientifically-based research" espouses looking for
practice-based evidence and practice-based outcomes as the only ground
on which to draw conclusions of effectiveness and efficacy. Yet, these
approaches often start from an "outsiders" perspective on a given
practice or set of practices - which I think is the key distinction from
participatory and/or action research (and, at times, CHAT). Or, what am
I missing? Don't these other approaches also privilege practice at some
level as the test of theory?
In Peace,
K.
Mike Cole wrote:
> I think the intrinsic connection between the two -- variously related--
> traditions is the chat
> principle that the iron test of theory is in practice, Kevin. That
> linkage
> can be made in various
> ways, of course, and is. But it provides a natural bridge.
> mike
>
> On 1/13/07, Kevin Rocap <Kevin.Rocap@liu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> Hi! A brief comment on some of Michael's good remarks and on Mike's,
>> below...
>>
>> Michael Glassman wrote:
>> > I don't know an enormous amount about action research, but I do think
>> that Argylis and Schon were very much inspired by Dewey and the idea of
>> experiential learning. ... - making the argument that those actually
>> engaged in the problem solving have a much better understanding of the
>> relationship between Argylis and Schon at least seem to be working
>> from the
>> same perspective - at least from what I can see - that members of an
>> organization have a better understanding of the problem solving than any
>> outsiders, and therefore a better chance of changing themselves when
>> researching how they actually do solve problems.
>> >
>>
>> You may be right about the inspiration Michael. From my, admittedly
>> now-a-bit-dated experience with Argyris's work, the actual evaluation,
>> assessment and change process involved in learning to distinguish
>> espoused theories from theories-in-use and to move from Model I to Model
>> II behavior relies heavily on external consultants (that's what Chris
>> was trying to train us to be ;-)).
>>
>> Granted the success of the change process ideally entails the
>> organizational participants themselves becoming better at openly
>> monitoring, questioning and responding to their own and each others' own
>> practices from within an action science framework (note action science
>> is not self-identical with action research, though part of what we're
>> doing here, I believe, is trying to instructively cull out the
>> similarities/differences, if any).
>>
>> At that point of change in the consulting process, it is interesting to
>> consider whether folks have simply changed their practices and so are
>> not really engaged in "research" per se, just in new behaviors. But
>> then I guess that brings us around to reflective practice, action
>> science and learning organizations in general. If one is an actively
>> participating member of a "learning organization" responsible for
>> ongoing and continuous inquiry, reflection and change is that
>> participation de facto a type of action research? Perhaps that leads us
>> to the cultural-historical pathway and associations with "research" with
>> its perhaps dominantly academic and/or scientific and/or social science
>> activity trajectories and baggage, no? How important is it to put
>> specific boundaries around research practice? And what should those
>> be? Would those include defining as research ongoing participation in
>> learning organizations?
>>
>> Regarding Mike's remarks on CHAT being useful for and sometimes utilized
>> in action research. Definitely, I agree - I included a bullet about the
>> usefulness of CHAT for action research for that reason (and your point
>> Mike that it not only lends itself to action research but that it has
>> been explicitly used for action research is a good one). My only point
>> is that I don't think there is anything to suggest that making use of a
>> CHAT framework equals or automatically implies being engaged in action
>> research. CHAT has been used plenty to engage in external research of
>> others' activities and actions, no? And your comment Mike seemed to me
>> even a bit more nuanced in that by looking through the lens of activity
>> theory and related CHAT theories and concepts you could simultaneously
>> be studying activity outside of your own practice AND your own practice
>> as a researcher (if I'm not reading into your comment too much). This
>> would be yet another combination/hybrid kind of research, imho.
>>
>> In Peace,
>> K.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
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