I wonder if this could be the difference that Jasmine was hinting at. Vossoughi and Gutierrez argue that multi-sited observations are an analytical tool to help the researcher understand the context of any type learning. Here, Jurrow and Shea are specifically interested in educational interventions that work to create a more just society. Scale making is about understanding how marginalized populations learn within and overcome entrenched injustices.

I think the key here is across - which is how it relates to the Vossoughi and Gutierrez. To really understand the full system of a subject's temporal, social, and spatial relations, you need to observe across multiple sites.

I think this kind of speaks to the multi-sited idea of horizontal forms of learning. It's not that you move from A to B and then you're done, it's not so "planned." You may move from A to G to B back to A and then to J and on and on.

This idea is very similar to the multi-sited piece. It is important to be aware of all these possible shifts (which are the same in both pieces-time, space, place) and how participants' individual histories can affect these shifts. I think both pieces argue that we have something to learn from these histories that then suggest learning is a cultural process of accumulating varying histories. This section links up really well with the multi-sited perspective that "Interpretive research, therefore, involves working to understand participants’ meaning perspectives on their own terms, rather than imposing external or normative categories" (619). I guess put really, really simply: what can we learn from others? How can we improve based on what we learn? And of course, that marginalized participant's perspectives are worth looking at.

It happened! Multisited ethnography providing evidence for multisited learning! Good for the promotoras, adding on top of the aforementioned grant!

This was the opportunity for a real multi-sited learning as the different practices accros cultures are to be shared, but then the researchers leave the place. Missed opportunity, sure.

I'm happy the authors explicitly discuss the dynamics of power and tensions in practices, especially in regards to my earlier comment. Because of my position toward equity and social justice, I think it's incredibly important to consider power, centrality, and marginalization when looking at multi-sited work and practices across space, cultural, and historical circumstances.

This scale perspective focuses on the spatial dimensions of practices in addition to the social and historical aspects, this definitely relates to multi-sited work. I also think there is a dynamic of power/privilege and centrality/marginalization happening here. Which is also discussed in the multi-sited article, specifically as movement mediated by power dynamics.

This example of scale making illuminates the work that the people are doing to across idea flows, practices, and space for equity. At this point, I'm understanding multi-sited work in relation to this article to almost be like intersectionality or the multiplicity of identities. Scale is a system of different relations (temporal, social, spatial...) that seem to intersect or exist simultaneously. Or maybe not?