Re: [xmca] A question about Lewin & CHAT& Engestrom

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Interesting, Michael.
So where does the pre 1934 interest in Lewin by Vygotsky and Luria, very
clear
in The Nature of Human Conflicts, (written circa 1930 I guestimate) come
from?

Did you read the Langemeyer article from MCA re the commonalilites and
similarities around "critical"? Does she have it right in your view?
mike

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>wrote:

> I think not only was Lewin's pre 1935 work pretty different from his post
> 1935 work but he actually had two completely different lines of work when
> he was in the United States, even post war (I think the war had a
> tremendous impact on his thinking for obvious reasons).  After he came to
> the United States his graduate students Lippett and Likert had really big
> influences on his thinking but in different directions.  Likert and his
> cohort (there was some really big statistical person I can't remember the
> name of) were really involved in his attempts to move social psychology
> into a very science oriented approach.  Lippett, who was I think Lewin's
> most important student post war, had spent time in Geneva with Piaget and
> tended to spend a lot of time with Deweyan.  I have read a couple of
> articles that in the late forties there were tremendous arguments in his
> lab about which direction to go.  Lewin it seems just sat back and said he
> thought it would work itself out eventually.  But anyway it was the Lippett
> branch that developed action research - which I think was related to but at
> the same time quite different from his early European research, and the
> social psychology to science was also different.
>
> The freeze - unfreeze - freeze idea that the poster talks about is closer
> to action research but seems to have come late in Lewin's thinking (it was
> a shame he died so early) and seems to me to have actually been made more
> famous by Argyris who considers himself a direct descendant of Lewin (even
> though he actually was not one of Lewin's students).  So if you simply
> focus on the freeze, unfreeze, freeze idea I think you are limiting
> yourself to a very late version of action research, or probably more
> Argyris and Schon's action science.
>
> Michael
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on behalf
> of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:06 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Cc: Rauno Huttunen
> Subject: Re: [xmca] A question about Lewin & CHAT& Engestrom
>
> Thanks for the reminder, Tiina. That whole issue is relevant. Also, this
> article speaks directly to Michael's speculations concerning a
> critical/non-critical orientation to existing socioculturalhistorical
> circumstances. Anyone without access who wants a copy, write me.
>
> I have a strong impression that people are talking about Lewin as if his
> work before, say, 1935 and after he escaped Germany and moved to the US
> were
> all action research and all of a piece. So no one commented on this part of
> the
> note I forwarded:
>
> For example, what I see Engeström is calling "Expansive learning" looks to
> my eye to be quite close to Lewin's freeze-unfreeze-freeze model, and to
> this standard change management model, in which we are looking (I think) at
> a fairly typical model of an object in the world of software products, in
> which external forces (which I would call activity systems) are interacting
> with an object that is evolving through the interaction of such systems:
>
>
> Also, although I cannot site the reference, I seem to recall seeing a paper
> where
> Yrjo replicates and extends (or does he just discuss, not sure) the line of
> experimentation that Zeigarnik and Dembo were involved in when they were in
> Lewin's lab in the 1930's.
>
> mike
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Tiina Kontinen
> <tiina.kontinen@helsinki.fi>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > There is an interesting article addressing action research-activity
> theory
> > relation (not describing any particular empirical case, though):
> >
> >
> > Langemeyer, I. (2011) Science and Social Practice: Action Research and
> > Activity Theory as Socio-Critical Approaches. Mind, Culture, and
> Activity,
> > 18: 148–160.
> >
> > -Tiina
> >
> >
> > Lainaus Rauno Huttunen <rakahu@utu.fi>:
> >
> >
> >  Hello,
> >>
> >> Nowadays the most famous representative of action research is Stephen
> >> Kemmis and he has keen interest on system theory.
> >>
> >> For Finnish members of the list: Stephen Kemmis is coming to next
> >> "Kasvatustieteen päivät" in Jyväskylä.
> >>
> >> Rauno
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.**ucsd.edu
> <xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>]
> >> On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov
> >> Sent: 22. toukokuuta 2013 5:44
> >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: RE: [xmca] A question about Lewin & CHAT& Engestrom
> >>
> >> I personally have looked in all these areas regarding the theoretical
> and
> >> methodological needs of design programming and building users research.
> The
> >> situation there might be quite different from the fields of human
> >> development and education.
> >>
> >> Action Research from an activity theory position should be conceived as
> >> project-specific research. Research that is intended to bring
> information
> >> for project/design decision-making. As a social scientist, Lewin makes a
> >> great conceptual leap to envisage science as a component of engineering
> (of
> >> social situations). However, from the other end of the continuum, from
> >> design and engineering practice, it is very easy to see the need for
> >> project-specific research. We can see examples of project-specific
> research
> >> in R&D (Research and Development).
> >>
> >> I personally use activity theory as a methodological instrument in
> >> project-specific research. Activity Theory has assimilated systems
> thinking
> >> and ecological/contextual thinking as well.
> >>
> >> One example of Lewinian thinking operationalized to action-relevant
> >> concepts is the behavior setting (Roger Barker). I would also like to
> >> mention here Bronfenbrenner for his more courageous introduction of
> systems
> >> thinking. The behavior setting concept is well known in environment and
> >> behavior research. However, with my preference to "activity" over
> >> "behavior," I am tempted to offer a similar concept -- "activity
> setting."
> >>  I strongly believe that the theoretical apparatus of "activity" has a
> >> number of methodological advantages over "behavior."
> >>
> >> With kind regards,
> >>
> >> Lubomir
> >>
> >> Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
> >> School of Family and Consumer Sciences
> >> American Culture Studies affiliated faculty
> >> 309 Johnston Hall,
> >> Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0059
> >> Lspopov@bgsu.edu
> >> 419.372.7935
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.**ucsd.edu
> <xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>]
> >> On Behalf Of mike cole
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:46 PM
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> >> Subject: [xmca] A question about Lewin & CHAT& Engestrom
> >>
> >> A former colleague sent this comment/question to me and I thought I
> would
> >> pass it along.
> >>
> >> I responded that there was a lot of interaction between Lewin, Vygotsky,
> >> Luria and ......., but I could not speak for later users of CHAT.
> >>
> >> Sort of fyi.
> >> mike
> >> -----------
> >>
> >> One thought has emerged from my current reading to come up with theories
> >> to inform methodology: I am curious as to why CHAT researchers had never
> >> seemed to look into Kurt Lewin's Action Research and Field Theory as
> tools
> >> to think about. For example, what I see Engeström is calling "Expansive
> >> learning" looks to my eye to be quite close to Lewin's
> >> freeze-unfreeze-freeze model, and to this standard change management
> model,
> >> in which we are looking (I think) at a fairly typical model of an
> object in
> >> the world of software products, in which external forces (which I would
> >> call activity systems) are interacting with an object that is evolving
> >> through the interaction of such systems:
> >>
> >>
> >> Software installation, tuning, management and upgrade is very much like
> >> this. The object mutates in response to its environment, interacting
> with
> >> multiple interactive communities, as customers use the tool and discover
> >> new things they wish it would do, or developers think of interesting
> things
> >> that can be done with the tool, in response to an environment of new
> tools
> >> and other developer's objects. The shared object changes in response to
> >> those goals (or is dumped--not that this would ever happen with
> >> *my*company's objects) for an object that looks like it can better
> reward
> >> the effort to shape it into goals that may not be fully grasped, but
> that
> >> become real in the interaction of users, developers, communities, and
> goals.
> >>
> >> I suppose Lewin's focus on the individual in society, rather than on
> >> action in society, is a theoretical barrier. But they both work for me
> >>
> >> ______________________________**____________
> >> _____
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >> ______________________________**____________
> >> _____
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________**____________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca