Re: [xmca] "At Risk"

From: <ERIC.RAMBERG who-is-at>
Date: Wed Dec 10 2008 - 07:32:02 PST

Yes Mike, you summarize the issue very well. I believe the answer is
qualitative research but I am frustrated to no end that all the great
dialectic minds come up with is Ilenkyov's universal. What can that do???


                      "Mike Cole"
                      <lchcmike@gmail. To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
                      com> cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] "At Risk"
                      12/09/2008 07:17
                      Please respond
                      to mcole; Please
                      respond to
                      "eXtended Mind,

You raise an important issue, Eric.
Seems like the only way to get the kind of measurement that is demanded by
accountability mavens/funding agencies, is to one or two or three
the issue in question, thereby squeezing the life out of the living
phenomenon. A
kind of strategic "de-systematizing" that denies murders to dissect, but
raw meat for accountability.

This strategy can produce interesting results. For example, the famous
of Emmy Werner on risk factors associated with being born on Kuai. On the
independent variable side: birth size, ethnicity, income, parents ed, etc
and on the
dependent variable side, success in school, death rate, encounters with the

Risky term, at risk. Being characterized by 2 or more risk factors in the
Kaui study
was not good for your health.


On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM, <> wrote:

> The discussion about the Luke's article and the Stetsenko and Sawshuck
> given me food for thought about the term 'at-risk'. For the funding of
> numerous programs in public education and social programs they dollars
> tied to students or clients identified as 'at risk'. "At risk' can mean
> what part of a city a person lives in, income level of a family,
> nationality, tribal afiliation, etc. On the other had the Center for
> Disease Control and Prevention the term is used for those individuals who
> are susceptible catching a particular disease or virus. For example,
> because of the population of students I work with (severely emotional
> disturbed) I have to participate in OSHA regulated blood-borne pathogens.
> This definition I believed has transformed from the field of social work
> and of course the field of social work is a direct descendent of Mills,
> Durkheim and the like. Is it possible to define the term "at risk" from
> the dialectic perspective? Is it possible to measure prevention of
> disease? Is it possible to measure the increase in quality of life from
> the introduction of programs for the 'at risk' populations?
> what do others think?
> eric
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Wed Dec 10 07:32:51 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 13:39:39 PST