1. UNIT OF ANALYSIS IN
CULTURAL HISTORICAL
ACTIVITY THEORETICAL
RESEARCH: CAN WE TALK
ABOUT THE
METHODOLOGICAL
DILEMMAS?
Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch
University of Tennessee at Knoxville

2. Purpose
 Address methodological dilemmas related to
the unit of analysis that investigators
encounter while engaging in research from a
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)
research
 Not about uniformity, start an open discussion

3. Why have this discussion?
 Methodological dilemmas in CHAT research are
unavoidable because investigators need to find a
balance between their epistemological beliefs and
methodological decisions in their work
(Stetsenko, 2010)
 CHAT scholars embrace a generous stance
understanding how people learn/develop and are
interested in human activity in real-world settings
 At the same time in research, a manageable unit
of analysis has to be identified to guide
methodological decisions for data
collection, analysis, and reporting

4. Why focus on the unit of
analysis?
 Unit of analysis is a conceptual tool for guiding
investigators to engage in meaningful and
systematic observations and analyses
 Unit of analysis can be
individuals, groups, artifacts, interactions among
individuals, or any other bounded system defined
by the investigator (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002;
Stake 1995)
 Guides methodological decisions for investigator
as a human instrument (Lincoln and Guba, 1985)
to take responsibility identifying what constitutes a
meaningful and relevant data

5. Plan for this Presentation
 Run through epistemological assumptions
 Examine how the unit of analysis is defined
within CHAT
 Refer to three sample works and how authors
identified the unit of analysis and engaged in
the investigation
 Discuss areas that need
responsible, thoughtful, and purposeful
methodological decisions guided by CHAT
epistemology and study situation

6. Epistemological Assumptions
Celebrate widened scope and context of
learning/development
 Human learning and development is
complex, organic, reciprocal through mediated
action (Vygotsky, 1978)
 Mediated action is a sociocultural process
where human beings interact with
artifacts, cultural tools, peers, and social setting
(Cole, 1996; Gauvain, 2001; Tobach et
al., 1997; Wertsch, 1991; Wertsch, 1998)

7. More Epistemological Assumptions
Celebrate widened scope and context of
learning/development
 Learning and development is inseparable from
its context (Lave,1988; Rogoff, 1990)
 Learning and development takes place in
everyday settings through practice (Chaiklin &
Lave, 1993; Lave & Wenger, 1991)
 Human cognition is distributed among social
others, cultural artifacts, and shared cognition
(Salomon, 1993; Wells, 1999)

8. And More Epistemological
Assumptions
Celebrate widened scope and context of
learning/development
 Learning and development is expansive and
participatory while participants encounter
contradictions (Engeström, 1989, 1993;
Engeström & Sannino, 2010)
 Human identity development takes place within
multiple contexts and is mediated through
conceptual and physical cultural artifacts
(Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, Cain; 1998)

9. CHAT Conversations about Unit of
Analysis
Unit of Analysis is…
 Mediated action (Rogoff,1995; Wertsch, 1991)
 Human activity (Leontiev, 1974), including both
observable and mental activities
(Galperin, 1992)
Can be….
 Distributed among
individuals, artifacts, context
(Engeström, 1987; Wertsch 1991)
 Collective, joint activities with shared objects
(Engeström, 2001)

10. Analytic Frameworks
Efforts for Bringing Ideas Together for Engaging in
Research
 Efforts made by activity theorists creating
analytic categories to examine interactions
between human beings and their social
environment (Scribner, 1997)
 Object-Oriented Activity (Leontiev, 1974)
 Goal-Directed Actions (Leontiev, 1974)
 Orienting-Activity (Galperin, 1992)

11. More Analytic Frameworks
Efforts for Bringing Ideas Together for Engaging in
Research
 Other analytic categories
 Activity Settings (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990)
 Activity Systems (Engeström, 1987)
 Four Levels of Inner Contradictions
(Engeström, 1987, 1993)
 Expansive Learning Cycles and Three Generations of
Activity Theory (Engeström; 1996, 2001)
 Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave &
Wenger, 1991)
 Three Planes of Sociocultural Analysis (Rogoff, 1995)
 Figured Worlds
(Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, Cain, 1998)

12. Discussion of Sample Studies
Selection Criteria
 Relied on CHAT in the theoretical
framework, data analysis, and discussion
 In the methods, the authors used one or more
of the CHAT analytical framework to guide
data collection and analysis
 The authors shared discussions that showed a
concern for identifying the unit of analysis in
CHAT

13. Examining Three Studies
Foot (2001) Igira & Aanestad
(2009)
Yamagata-Lynch
& Haudenschild
(2009)
Research
Purpose
Tracing activities
of a large
multinational
human
sociopolitical
network
Tracing evolving
contradictions in a
evolving
healthcare
practices related
to the
development of a
new information
system
Identifying
teacher
perspectives of
contradictions in
professional
development
Approach to
Human Activity
through CHAT
Examine human
activity as object-
oriented activity to
analyze
contradictions
Examine human
activity within
social context and
historically
evolving
Examine human
activity as a
complex
phenomenon
shared among

14. Examining of Three Studies
Foot (2001) Igira & Aanestad
(2009)
Yamagata-Lynch
& Haudenschild
(2009)
Unit of Analysis Entire
multinational
network
Network of
activities initiated
and engaged by
multiple subjects
in healthcare
network that were
revealed in the
data
Distinct units of
activities initiated
by different
subjects that were
revealed in the
data
Analytical
Framework
Contradictions Activity systems
and contradictions
Four levels of
inner
contradictions and
joint activity
systems similar to
second

15. Examining of Three Studies
Foot (2001) Igira & Aanestad
(2009)
Yamagata-Lynch
& Haudenschild
(2009)
Investigator
Participation
Level
Participatory, but
no description of
degree of
participation
Participatory, but
no description of
degree of
participation
Observer
Data Collection
Methods
Ethnographic,
participant
observation,
interviews, and
discussion in the
field
Ethnographic,
observations,
interviews,
informal talks, and
document
analysis
Naturalistic
inquiry, semi-
structured
interviews and
document
analysis

16. Examining of Three Studies
Foot (2001) Igira & Aanestad
(2009)
Yamagata-Lynch
& Haudenschild
(2009)
Analysis Thematic with
focus on
observable
discoordinations
in collective
network activities
Triangulated data
and identified
contradictions in
participant
healthcare
activities and
mapped
expansive cycle
Constant
comparative
method, thick
description,
identified activity
systems and
inner
contradictions
Conclusions Network
contradictions
were related to
sociopolitical and
economic
concerns
Healthcare
system
development was
complex and
difficult to
represent in
Teachers
perceived
difficulties in
professional
development (PD)
when they did not

17. Overall Characteristics
 Research purpose are open
ended, exploratory, and relies on participant
and researcher experiences in the field
 Unit of analysis is broad in
scope, emergent, and situational to the study
 Data collection methods are primarily
qualitative
 Research approach can be participatory or
descriptive
 Unclear how the unit of analysis affected data
analysis

18. Data Collection Dilemmas
Clarifying Role of the Unit of Analysis
 Drawing boundaries in human activities during
data collection while embracing generous
scope and emergent nature of research
purpose
 Access opportunity to data  Time, established
relations, and professional roles
 Investigator engagement level  collecting data
while participating in evolving activities
 Focusing on what is data  sorting data while its
exponential growth

19. Analysis Dilemmas
Clarifying Role of the Unit of Analysis
 Drawing purposeful boundaries in analysis by
relying on research
purpose/question, emergent findings, and
analytical frameworks
 Thematic analysis  search for potential
bounded systems while making sense of as much
data as possible
 Organize data  find narratives that are
meaningful and relevant to research
purpose/question guided by emergent findings

20. Analysis Dilemmas
Clarifying Role of the Unit of Analysis
 Identify bounded systems  rely on analytical
framework to identify bounded units that can be
analyzed and discussed in research report
 Ensure participant voices are heard  examine
bounded units in analysis and ensure they
represent participant perspectives

21. Reporting Dilemmas
Clarifying Role of the Unit of Analysis
 Reporting a messy real-world situation in a
communicative format
 Preparing descriptions  act of engaging in
CHAT research may be messy and
participatory, but reporting that involves
storytelling need to be descriptive with a
beginning, middle, and an end
(Eisner, 2008, Hatch, 2002)

22. Conclusions
Where are we now?
 Collectively we have a strong professional
discourse regarding CHAT epistemology
 We tend to not spend time on discussing
methodological issues including the dilemmas
associated to how to work with the generous
scope of our epistemology that is reflected in
our unit of analysis, and how that affects our
approach to data collection, analysis, and
reporting
 Where can we start discussions?