Dear Yro and Andy,
It would benefit a lot this list if you actually engage in a serious
dialogue rather than pretend that you have foreign and incomprehensible
languages, which is not of course true or you wouldn't be here.
If we go back to Marx for example committed as he was to study Capitalism
we already have a good demonstration of a system (capitalism) and he found
of course a unit of analysis from which to proceed, the commodity. Does it
make any sense to start from here?
Ivo
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Antti Rajala <ajrajala@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry about this earlier empty email. My phone seems to have written
something on its own.
Best, Antti
Antti Rajala wrote:
AaSAA
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Antti Rajala <ajrajala@gmail.com> wrote:
AaSAA
keskiviikko 12. kesäkuuta 2013 Greg Thompson kirjoitti:
Antti,
And not to overwhelm you Antti, (and first thanks for sharing your notes
with me offline), but I have a follow-up question about how the concept
of
"knots" and "knotworking" is being used by Engestrom and Sannino (I
recall
some fondness for knots and knotworking by folks at LCHC - Jay, Mike,
Ivan,
Camille, and Robert preeminent among them, but most literally embodied
by
the work of Rachel Pfister who is studying Ravelry - an online knitting
community - knots indeed!).
With regard to the concept of knots and the librarians, I see at least
two uses: one in which knots are positive, as in knots intentionally
tied,
and in which you imbricate the interests of others with your own
interests
(and it seems that this would be wise for librarians to do...), and the
other in which knots are negative, as in knots that are caused by
unfortunate circumstances, and in which the aim is to "work" out the
knots
that others are experiencing in their lives (something that would also
be
wise for librarians to do and which will de facto result in the first
kind
of intended knots!).
In the end I'm just wondering what work the concept of "knots" and
"knotworking" are doing for the librarians?
Any chance you could provide some insight into this knotty problem? And
perhaps unravel the knot that my words have caught me up in (or,
perhaps,
which I have tied...)?
-greg
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
wrote:
Antti, I was directing my question to you and your remarks.
In Engestrom's highlky regarded, now out of print, 1987 text "Learning
by
Expanding", the famous triangle logo is given as Figure 2.6, and after a
long consideration of "candidates" for "unit of analysis" he says the
following about this triangle: "The model of Figure 2.6 may now be
compared
with the four criteria of a root model of human activity, set forth
earlier
in this chapter." and goes on to list and consider the criteria which
are
commonly associated in this current with the notion of "unit of
analysis."
(numerous citations are not required). But he never said that the
triangle
is a unit of analaysis, and it is not, and cannot be. He said it is a
root
model and it is. The root model is a system concept, not a unit of
analysis.
Do you think it possible that this has been the source of some
confusion?
Andy
Antti Rajala wrote:
Thanks Andy for sharing the wikipedia text, and your thoughts about the
issue! The thoughts about unit of analysis were my own interpretation of
the study, and I am not sure if the issue you raised concerns the
original
study.
Warm wishes, Antti
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Antti, here is a link to th eWikipedia on "System concept"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**System<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System>
Why do Activity Theorists in Engstrom's current of thinking mix up
the idea of a system concept with a unit of analysis?
Andy
Antti Rajala wrote:
Greg,
You asked:
”My question is getting at where we locate "agency". In
individuals alone?
Or as possibly being distributed among multiple people and
perhaps in
amanner that isn't recognizable to the individual. But maybe
there is
aconcept for that that is different from "double stimulation.”
I think that double stimulation can be analyzed not only at
the individual
level but at the collective level as well. Actually, the study
of Engeström
and Sannino (2013) that I referred to in my earlier email
gives a nice
example. The study also involves in some respects a similar
situation as
the one that you described having taken place with the workers
in Malaysia.
According to my reading, the study describes a change laboratory
intervention taking place in a university library. The library
as invited
researchers to help them find new forms of work with research
groups. A
first stimulus emerges in the course of the change laboratory
intervention,
as a member of one of the research groups that the university
library is
delivering services says that they can find these services in
the internet
without the help of the library. Thus a problem emerges for
the librarians
to collectively produce a service that would be genuinely
helpful for the
research groups.
In solving this problem, they organize their collective action
with the
help of a second stimulus, namely the concept of knotworking
(Engeström,
Engeström & Vähäaho, 1999) that the researchers have
introduced in the
beginning of the change laboratory. In particular, a new
working group, a
knot, is formed that starts to work with the emergent problem
of inventing
a useful service.
What is in my opinion very innovative, Engeström and Sannino
also provide
an example of this second stimulus, the concept of
knotworking, becoming an
initial theoretical generalization that is reworked and
enriched through a
process of ascending from abstract to concrete as the
intervention e
__________________________________________
_____
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