{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02997737556561086, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0022624434389140274, 'mean_word_length': 5.207017543859649, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
RESPONSE: Genetic Method and Empirical Techniques: Reply to Hatano and Sfard's Commentaries on Cognition in Flux

Some time ago, Geoffrey Saxe (1994) published an article in Mind, Culture, and Activity that invoked a distinction between a method of inquiry and empirical techniques. Techniques are approaches to data gathering like observations, interviews, and surveys, as well as research designs. They are a tool kit for empirical work. Deeply linked to conceptual frames and units of analysis, a method of inquiry is something bigger. A method, like the genetic method outlined in our article, positions the investigator to pursue particular leads while leaving others to remain unexplored, if not unnoticed. It supports an investigator’s efforts to parse nature at its joints, given theoretical assumptions about the character of knowledge and knowledge change. Our method of inquiry targets forms and functions used in collective practices, with a focus on continuities and discontinuities in processes of micro-, onto-, and sociogenetic change. In the case at hand, we set our sights on the lexical expression fu, using it as a microcosm to unravel some complex issues in culture–cognition relations. Sfard (this issue) and Hatano’s (this issue) commentaries spark a host of interesting issues or tensions between our techniques and our genetic method, and in our reply, we comment on three: (a) our genetic method and techniques to document naturally occurring conversation, (b) cross-cohort design techniques and what they afford in relation to our method, and (c) epistemological groundings of our method and techniques. In each case, we make efforts to clarify issues and in so doing point to productive tensions between methods and techniques in fieldwork.