I am trying to get a handle on this method/methodology distinction, along with the idea that it is not a coherent method. Is the idea that AR is not a coherent deductive method, that is it cannot be used to prove an issue where the answer to the problem is suggested in the premises of the question? If that is the claim I think it is certainly true, but I am under the impression that this is the whole point of AR, that establishing premises before understanding the organization that you are studying is potentially limiting in terms of actually solving a problem (as opposed to creating a piece of evidence that will in some way enhance the premises). AR seems to be more inductively oriented - the desire to slowly build fluid general laws while at the same time establishing some types of interactive change. There does seems to be a methodology, but not one that ties into proving or again even enhancing specific premises. One of the things I liked about Chaiklin's article was his willingness to bring Chris Argylis into the discussion, because of his idea of double loop learning - you don't just learn from research, but you learn about your research while doing it. Chaiklin article, as usual, was very careful in its analysis. One thing that I was a little disappointed in is he didn't tie Lewin's idea of AR back into his Field Theory which I think is important. At this point I'm thinking Lewin really didn't start AR, there were a number of organizational theorists who were working on it before him, but he named it and he brought I think some of the ideas from his Field Theory into it. When he wrote the original article on the attempts to change the roles of minorities in a community I feel like it was mostly about Field Theory, but I believe he was in contact with a number of people who were doing organizational work so that by the time he wrote his book it had gone through a (short) evolutionary process. Who knows what might have happened if Lewin had lived. Reading Lewin I sometimes conceptualize AR as a billiards game. The balls are set around the table but you know they are going to move at some point. You take your stick and use the cue ball to attempt to get a result, after planning and based on previous experience you shoot your cue ball and smack it into the other balls and set everything in motion. You watch the balls spin around the table, noticing where each goes and why based on previous position and interaction; but it is always at least a little bit different from what was expected. And then the balls stop, and maybe you got your result and maybe you didn't, but all the balls are in a different place and it is time for the next shot. There is certainly a method in billiards. Is there a methodology. I'm maybe one of the three people who watches billiards on televsion (Janet Lee - the black widow) and watching the players move around the table, the expression on their faces between shots, I tend to think so. But I also have to say I was more convinced that there was a relationship between AR and Vygotsky before reading Chaiklin than after. Seth Chaiklin seemed to be really stretching to find a connection. One of the difficulties I think is that to some extent Vygotsky had a teleological view of development (at least sometimes he did. I kind of think Vygotsky was all over the place, struggling with ideas just like everybody else). But Vygotsky did seem to believe in the idea of the revolution and the "New Man." His ideas were working towards a specific goal, a way of being in the world. So how do you compare that to a billiard game. Wish I had a chance to read the other articles before April ended (Spring brings such sweet pain). Michael
<<winmail.dat>>
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca