Sounds like a good suggestion, or suggestionS, David. I do not believe that
looking at methods will suffice either, but that we would benefit
collectively
by addressing the method/methodology distinction in the context of concrete
examples.
mike
On 1/14/07, David ES <eddyspda@gse.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> I'd welcome the chance to read and discuss Cathrene's chapter, as well.
>
> Another piece to consider is Anne Edward's article, "Looking at action
> research through the lenses of sociocultural psychology and activity
> theory" in Educational Action Research (2000, v8n1).
>
> She's after the points of conceptual connection and finds one in a
> shared concern around the interplay of individual agency and
> organizational surround (at least in the version of collaborative action
> research she leans into, John Elliott's, inspired by Giddens). She notes
> that CHAT offers AR systematic means of theorizing and analyzing
> interconnections among agency, action, system.
>
> It seems a critical consideration has to be about the levels at which
> cross-pollination occurs--who gets to enact the role of researcher
> (owning conceptual & analytic frameworks) and who gets researched.
>
> For example, Cobb & McClain serve as one example, with thoughtful,
> engaged researchers on the outside using CHAT as a means of illuminating
> how insiders carry out what might be considered broadly a collaborative
> action research effort. Another example is that of the Developing
> Inquiring Communities of Educators Project, which Gordon Wells describes
> in the first chapter of Action, Talk, and Text as a close-knit group of
> teacher-researchers co-constructing a common framework for inquiry by
> delving into CHAT together.
>
> So looking at methods alone might not get at such issues of epistemology
> and power, but methodologies would. It would be great to lay out a
> spectrum of worked examples, including Cathrene's, these, others.
>
> David
>
>
> Mike Cole wrote:
> > We can post the chapter you refer to on xmca papers for discussion if
> you
> > wish. Catherine.
> > Once again terminology arises to challenge us: sociocultural/action/chat
> > research methods to be added to
> > grounded research............ as Kevin noted yesterday.
> >
> > Perhaps an internet course on comparison of methods, or perhaps
> > methodologies?
> > mike
> >
> > On 1/14/07, Merja Helle <Merja.Helle@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >>
> >> cathrene
> >>
> >> i certainly would be interested in your dissertation
> >>
> >> merja helle
> >>
> >> e-mail: merja.helle@helsinki.fi
> >>
> >> Quoting Cathrene Connery <ConneryC@cwu.EDU>:
> >>
> >> > Hi everyone:
> >> > My dissertation on the ontogenesis of emergent biliterates (2006)
> >> > integrated sociocultural and action research methods. During the
> >> course
> >> > of the writing,it became necessary to include an additional chapter
> on
> >> > the philosophical assumptions of the study for one of the committee
> >> > members to legitimize my approach. I'd be happy to forward the
> chapter
> >> > as an attachment to anyone who is interested. It certainly would
> >> make a
> >> > fun article for anyone who'd like to collaborate!
> >> > Cathrene
>
> --
> David Eddy Spicer, Ed.D.
> Harvard Graduate School of Education
> <eddyspda@gse.harvard.edu>
> _______________________________________________
> 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