Controversy as a Developmental Tool in Cross Self-Confrontation Analysis

In Psychology, the issue of language usage as a means of action in psychological life requires thatwe question the relations between the forms of language expression and their psychologicalfunctions. The current paper contributes to an understanding of this question. The relationbetween form and function is examined here, with particular focus on a discursive and dialogicmethod employed in the Activity Clinic approach to elicit controversy as a means of developingdialogical thinking. We argue that the interfunctionality of levels of dialogue serves developmentalprocesses, promoting thought and the possibilities for its elaboration. We describe thesedevelopmental processes on the basis of an empirical analysis of a sequence from an interventionconducted with Roman Catholic Priests on preaching in homily. Our methodological frameworkshave the function of vivifying dialogical thinking about work, by making use of theinterfunctionality of levels of dialogue and the vital function of social relations in thepsychological life of the subjects

Setting the scene and introduction

Peer reviewe

Quand les instruments de métier deviennent objets de discours

De plus en plus de méthodologies d’analyse du travail revendiquent une approche développementale, c’est-à-dire visent la transformation des situations et/ou des individus. Un certain nombre d’entre elles postulent que c’est en permettant aux professionnels d’engager eux-mêmes une analyse de leur propre activité de travail qu’on y parvient (voir par exemple Clot, 2008 ; Engeström, 1987, 2000 ; Béguin & Cerf, 2004 ; Pastré, 2005). Toutefois, l’expérience montre que même au sein de dispositifs soigneusement construits pour favoriser le développement de leur activité par les sujets, les moments de développement véritable de l’activité d’analyse, sans parler même du développement de l’activité pratique, qui reste en général difficile à attester dans l’espace-temps du dispositif de recherche, sont des « perles rares ». Nous nous penchons dans cet article sur quelques unes de ces perles, isolées au sein de deux interventions conduites en clinique de l’activité avec la méthodologie des autoconfrontations croisées (Clot, 1999, 2005, 2008 ; Clot et al., 2001), l’une avec des experts de la VAE et l’autre avec des prêtres catholiques, afin d’extraire de leur comparaison une meilleure compréhension des conditions du développement de l’analyse. Nous nous focaliserons dans cet article sur un des mécanismes, récurrent dans les matériaux analysés, qui contribue à la construction de cet « espace de pensée » (Perret-Clermont, 2001) où l’on parvient à produire du nouveau.A growing number of work analysis methodologies demand a developmental approach, i.e. they aim to change workers and/or work situations. Some assume that this change can best be achieved by closely involving people in the analysis of their own work activity (e.g. Clot, 2008; Engeström, 1987, 2000; Béguin & Cerf, 2004; Pastré, 2005). However, research experience shows that examples of such change remain uncommon, even in frameworks carefully designed to support the subjects’ development of their activity, not to mention the development of practical activity, which is generally very difficult to demonstrate within the space and time restrictions of a research project. In this paper, we analyse a few such examples drawn from two projects carried out in Clinic of Activity using the technique of cross self-confrontation (Clot, 1999, 2005, 2008; Clot et al., 2001). The first was conducted in conjunction with experts in Accreditation for Work Experience (or VAE, as it is known in French), the second with Roman Catholic priests. We compare the two to acquire a better understanding of the conditions required for development of the analysis. We will focus on one of the mechanisms that recurs often in our material: the construction of a “space for reflection” (Perret-Clermont, 2001) where new ways of thinking are created

Le Glossaire: 125 ans de sciences citoyennes en dialectologie

The Glossary of the Patois of Western Switzerland is a pioneering citizen science project in the field of linguistics and dialectology: born at the end of the 19th century, it has been continuously funded, and active, ever since. The Glossary is based on the collection and analysis of the local variants of the French-speaking patois, which were threatened by rapid extinction, through the written exchange of questionnaires, instructions, data and feedbacks with a network of dedicated “correspondents”. In this article, we analyse this project with a modern reading grid by looking at how citizen participation in a research project was conceived and designed more than a hundred years ago. We examine three types of questions: the scientific objectives of the project and its historical context; the design and organisation of citizen collaboration in the project, in particular the nature of the tasks entrusted to citizens and the strategies for controlling the quality of the data; and finally, the various communication tools of the project, which allowed citizen participation during a long (10 years) data collection process, as well as the continuous engagement of the political funders (French-speaking Cantons and the Swiss Confederation) during 125 years so far