[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] CHAT-AR: Seth's Table



The ‘participation’ component of PAR (participatory ACTION RESEARCH) is
what intrigues me. Emphasis on participation  was a result of  criticism
of approaches in development and rural agricultural research by the
World Bank and IMF which was extractive and ultimately exploitative.
They used approaches such as Rapid Rural Appraisal, which also developed
into Participatory Rural Appraisal. Robert Chambers has a book called 
‘Putting the last first’ and a chapter entitled ‘Whose knowledge?’.
Both of these highlight the moral imperative behind participatory
research approaches.
But for me what is lacking in these approaches is a theorization of what
‘participation’ does, how it is the cornerstone of change on individual
and social levels. I think that is what Vygotsky and CHAT approaches
(and DWR in particular) add to PAR etc., a way of understanding how it
is that participative processes are so significant in bringing about
social change. A moral imperative is not enough to ensure change.
Mary




Mary van der Riet; School of Psychology; University of KwaZulu-Natal
Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209

email: vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za
tel: 033 260 6163;  fax: 033 2605809

>>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> 05/16/11 04:19 AM >>>
I think Vygotsky's absence of concern for ownership of a collaborative 
research project arose from what we would see today as a naive 
acceptance of the Soviet Union as the inheritor a popular revolution. I 
am sure he knew better, but it seems to have been a working assumption. 
It meant that he could see himself as a participant in that revolution, 
exercising popular agency. It doesn't look like that to us in historical

retrospect and few of us on this list see it that way here and now.

I have to say that we I first got interested in this stuff I saw it that

way (like LSV). My activism was as an elected trade union representative

and thinking about what I was doing was one of the responsibilities of 
that role. So also was maintaining a high level of participation in and 
commitment to the work. Things have changed, both in the world outside 
and my relation to it, and I now take these questions to be as relevant 
to me as they were to those academic researchers who would interview me 
as a subject years ago.

But apart from many experiences with change consultants brought in by 
successive managers, I really know nothing of Lewin and AR or Mondragon,

so I can't help with this issue any further, other than to affirm that I

now believe that the dynamics of collaboration are a central problem for

psychology, maybe even *the* central problem, and this question rightly 
deserves attention. It tends to be hidden until class divisions or 
neo-liberal atomisation of society, puts collaboration into relief

Andy

mike cole wrote:
> I am still trying to figure out the issue of theory and methodology in
this
> CHAT-AR discussion but in the meantime, I am would like to know
other's
> views of Figure 3
> in Seth's article.  Here is what I could capture from the pdf. (Hey!
It
> worked!!).
> "Proposition" refers to a set of analytic characteristics that Seth
uses to
> compare Lewin and Vygotsky. I raise questions below.
>
> Proposition
>
>                Lewin
> Vygotsky
>
> 1. Direct consideration of improvement of
>
> societal practice
>                             +     + ?
>
> 2. Necessary to intervene into societal practices
>                                      +     +
>
> 3. Explicit attention to societal values used
>  O    O
>
> 4. Part of being objective is to consider
>
> societal values and interests
>                                                                     O 
  O
>
> 5. Advocacy and objectivity
>                                                                     O 
 O
>
> 6. Distinction between “basic” and
>
> “applied” is meaningless
>                                                                       
  +
> +
>
> *Note. *+ indicates concordance; ? indicates uncertainty; O indicates
> absence.
>
> I want to focus on propositions 3,4,5. I think that they might provide
a
> rough pointer
> towards some of the differences that appear to exist between different
forms
> of research that claims some relation to some form off action
research.
>
> 3 and 4 are closely related in that both presuppose that there is more
than
> one social value and interest to be considered. Neither LSV nor Lewin,
it
> seems, attended to these issues explicitly. Then, of course, they
would not
> pay explicit attention to advocacy.
>
> I believe that in general people who participate in this discussion
assume
> that there are in fact multiple societies in Society, we would point
to
> socioeconomic class as fundamental, but however we do it, we would
argue
> that those "for whom" the research is being done are not members of a
single
> society with a single set of values and a single set of criteria of
virtue.
> So we MUST raises these issues.
>
> When we do, the issue of agency jumps in our face.  Whose interests
are
> being served here, given that there are different social groupings
involved?
> Who gets to decide what gets remembered out of these encounters and
who does
> not?
>
> When conducting joint research with Soviet colleagues in the 1980's I
> learned that the question of who initiates a proposed collaborative
project
> is a central concern in human interaction.  At the diplomatic level,
my
> Soviet colleagues did all they could to be sure that it was the
Americans
> who initiated any interaction. Why? Because they could go to their
bosses
> and say, "We have been asked to engage in these activities, what
should we
> do?" Once they were told to do what they wanted to do in the first
place,
> the could perceive. They were absolved of the crime of exerting
agency.
>
> When working with local communities, the balancing of responsibility
for the
> joint activity is an ongoing and major concern. I take Yrjo's focus on
the
> method of dual stimulation in the Change Lab as a way of providing the
> "other" (postal workers, medical workers, etc.) with agency.... to
become
> their instrument.
>
> I like the phrase I learned from Olga Vasquez, "reciprocal relations
of
> exchange." Sounds like the definition of non-profit capitalism, but
when one
> achieves such reciprocity, good things happen.
>
> What do others think about the absence of these concerns shared by
Vygotsky
> and Lewin that we do not, I am surmising, share with them? (Judging
from
> Seth's account.)
>
> mike
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>   

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: 
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca