Re: a comment from Wertsch

Eva Ekeblad (eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se)
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:35:19 +0200

Jim sent this response and cc-ed it to the list. I just figured out it
probably did not get through, as he is not subscribing right now, but his
intention must have been for you all to get it.

Eva

At 08.14 -0500 99-06-20, James Wertsch wrote:
>Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 08:14:45 -0500 (CDT)
>From: James Wertsch <jwertsch who-is-at artsci.wustl.edu>
>To: Eva Ekeblad <eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se>
>cc: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: a comment from Wertsch
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>Eva-
>
>I think your comments on "unkempt forests of literature" is very much on
>target. It's hard to know sometimes what this the chicken and what is the
>egg--empirical examples or forests of literature. Of course the realistic
>answer is that these things are hopelessly mixed up with one another. One
>seeks out literature that will help with the examplar one has in mind, on
>the one hand, and one's theoretical orientation guides one's selection and
>analysis of empirical phenomena, on the other. I guess I continue to be
>impressed with how much the empirical phenomena guide so much of what we
>do. Depending on what one gets started on in empirical studies (perhaps
>because of pressures from funding agencies, one's disciplinary and
>departmental politics, etc.), one is likely to go down one or another
>theoretical path.
>
>Jim