XMCA Mail 2007_01: Re: [xmca] CHAT and action-research

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

Re: [xmca] CHAT and action-research

Sounds like a good suggestion, or suggestionS, David. I do not believe that
looking at methods will suffice either, but that we would benefit
collectively
by addressing the method/methodology distinction in the context of concrete
examples.
mike

On 1/14/07, David ES <eddyspda@gse.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> I'd welcome the chance to read and discuss Cathrene's chapter, as well.
>
> Another piece to consider is Anne Edward's article, "Looking at action
> research through the lenses of sociocultural psychology and activity
> theory" in Educational Action Research (2000, v8n1).
>
> She's after the points of conceptual connection and finds one in a
> shared concern around the interplay of individual agency and
> organizational surround (at least in the version of collaborative action
> research she leans into, John Elliott's, inspired by Giddens). She notes
> that CHAT offers AR systematic means of theorizing and analyzing
> interconnections among agency, action, system.
>
> It seems a critical consideration has to be about the levels at which
> cross-pollination occurs--who gets to enact the role of researcher
> (owning conceptual & analytic frameworks) and who gets researched.
>
> For example, Cobb & McClain serve as one example, with thoughtful,
> engaged researchers on the outside using CHAT as a means of illuminating
> how insiders carry out what might be considered broadly a collaborative
> action research effort. Another example is that of the Developing
> Inquiring Communities of Educators Project, which Gordon Wells describes
> in the first chapter of Action, Talk, and Text as a close-knit group of
> teacher-researchers co-constructing a common framework for inquiry by
> delving into CHAT together.
>
> So looking at methods alone might not get at such issues of epistemology
> and power, but methodologies would. It would be great to lay out a
> spectrum of worked examples, including Cathrene's, these, others.
>
> David
>
>
> Mike Cole wrote:
> > We can post the chapter you refer to on xmca papers for discussion if
> you
> > wish. Catherine.
> > Once again terminology arises to challenge us: sociocultural/action/chat
> > research methods to be added to
> > grounded research............ as Kevin noted yesterday.
> >
> > Perhaps an internet course on comparison of methods, or perhaps
> > methodologies?
> > mike
> >
> > On 1/14/07, Merja Helle <Merja.Helle@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >>
> >> cathrene
> >>
> >> i certainly would be interested in your dissertation
> >>
> >> merja helle
> >>
> >> e-mail: merja.helle@helsinki.fi
> >>
> >> Quoting Cathrene Connery <ConneryC@cwu.EDU>:
> >>
> >> > Hi everyone:
> >> > My dissertation on the ontogenesis of emergent biliterates (2006)
> >> > integrated sociocultural and action research methods. During the
> >> course
> >> > of the writing,it became necessary to include an additional chapter
> on
> >> > the philosophical assumptions of the study for one of the committee
> >> > members to legitimize my approach. I'd be happy to forward the
> chapter
> >> > as an attachment to anyone who is interested. It certainly would
> >> make a
> >> > fun article for anyone who'd like to collaborate!
> >> > Cathrene
>
> --
> David Eddy Spicer, Ed.D.
> Harvard Graduate School of Education
> <eddyspda@gse.harvard.edu>
> _______________________________________________
> 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