What is the difference between a theory and a framework? Is there a difference in how one would be applied…? I thought that they are almost the same thing. A theoretical framework is what one´s research would be embedded in. Can anyone shed light on this discrepancy?

Yesterday, I had the (mis)fortune to read an article by Carl Ratner entitled: What is Psychology of Liberation? It is Cultural Psychology . I am sure that the article is too brief in its discussion of activity theory in the context of cultural psychology, which is the source of some of the problems I am going to discuss here. I really can´t say I´m sorry I read it, because my reaction to the writing was very thought-provoking.

It begins with promise:

“…liberation must…include transforming the culture in which people live–humanizing social institutions, practices, conditions and values. Such cultural change is imperative for real liberation.”

Of course, I want to agree and of course, he is talking specifically about cultural psychology, which he is clear to define as a “science” on the basis that “history is replete with examples of strong ideas to improve life which wind up inflicting hurtful policies on people.¨ Unfortunately, a science has been employed in much the same regard. To hide behind the cloak of a science claiming protection of the common people is just as potentially dangerous.

But I can agree that transforming the culture in which people live is critical to liberation, but at the same time, maybe people really can´t ever be completely free—which is a result of the tension of living as social creatures. People should however, feel empowered, which is not the same thing as feeling liberated. And while some of this can result from often necessary cultural shifts, particularly where discrimination is codified—once policy-supported oppression is discarded, it is much more challenging to shift people´s personal beliefs, which are shaped by fear.

When Ratner begins to talk about the historical uses of reading…and that reading typically caught on when it was economically beneficial—when people saw it as an ends to a means, it reminded me of the importance of historicity. I found this to be a particularly strong point of the paper. Learning to read meant something radically different 200 years ago, and a shift in our societal push to “educate” people has resulted in really, a different meaning for what it means to be educated. And thus, because people, traditionally learn to read to attain better societal opportunities (from an economic standpoint), at the same time that educators are trying to teach people to read to attain better personal opportunity from a loftier perspective of reading in terms of exploring what we are capable of as human beings. And now this tension and pattern repetition is being expanded to digital technologies.

The finish of the article is very problematic for me though.

“People often underestimate the extent to which their psychological phenomena embody cultural activities an concepts. Consequently, most people believe that they have transcended their culture when they have not.¨

The problem I have is this—is activity theory (or cultural psychology) about transforming culture or about transcending culture. Of course, cultural transformation is an enormous process to get one´s mind around….and for this people analyze systems and try to understand systemic change. But can someone “transcend culture”? It´s not possible as every action of the person is still rooted in a reaction to the contextual culture. And it is unforseeable that in reacting to a dominant cultural influence, that one´s actions will be devoid of another cultural context. Other people have already thought to react to the dominant culture…thus the reaction is still part of a community.

And what if a radical transformation does not occur. What if the activity that is being influenced isn´t transformed? What if the participants only change slightly, their direction and goals shift minutely…is this still activity theory? Are there “strong” and “weak” models of activity theory and has anyone written about this???

So as I thought more about my post yesterday, I realized that the unit of analysis is the activity. And for my study, this unit of analysis fits perfectly…well, at least I see how it fits. My unit of analysis is the activity: mentoring. Then I am looking at all the patterns and interactions that occur within this activity.

However, in my study that studies mentoring, I also act as a sort of mentor. Is this a metadiscussion about mentoring? How do I sort out what data fits with the activity and what data does not…or is all data gathered in this larger discussion relevant to mentoring?

Where do the limits of activity theory lie? If externalization (production of completely new cultural artifacts that are transformative in nature) does not occur, what does this mean? Is it possible to even really create artifacts that are transformative in their substance, or is the real power in the transformative process of creating new meaning for oneself. Ie, won´t all objects and mediating artifacts be rooted in culture and thus…even if they are contemplative and critical…they cannot exist outside of a culture….Anyone who is not on summer vacation…feel free to respond!!!

Technorati Tags: Activity Theory

If activity theory moves away from the individual as a unit of analysis, how does one make a group, instead as the unit of analysis?

This post may seem like it´s coming out of left field…as I have not posted on academic matters recently. I am working on a presentation of the theoretical grounding of my dissertation research. I designed the study with activity theory in mind, and I intend to analyze the data in terms of activity…and to do so, I have artifacts that were generated throughout the group collaboration process.

On one level, I am confident about the unit of analysis—it is a pair of an adult mentor and student who worked collaboratively throughout the three months of the study. They clearly collaborated together on their projects.

However, to analye the larger group of adult mentors that also met as a group, with less clearly defined GROUP goals and objectives…how can I analyze the group as the unit of analysis, without analyzing each individual in the context of the group? Is this the only way to do this? And if so, can activity theory ever be applicable outside of very small group dynamics?

Technorati Tags: Activity Theory