In a message dated 3/29/2001 1:55:30 PM Central Standard Time,
dhodges@ceo.cudenver.edu writes:
> well, in academia, of course, there is good textual evidence to support
> any position or idea, from the most absurd to the most obtuse, - i mean,
> if anything, there is an excess of evidence substantiating particular
> (popular) positions, and a lack of analysis to interrogate 'who benefits'
> from all this evidence.
> perhaps i'm misunderstanding (lordess knows it's happened before eh?)
> but mightn't a critical-historical perspective provide more space for
> innovation, as opposed to retreading the worn trails of unquestioned
> practice?
>
I would just like to applaud this comment diane. Sometimes, it appears that
theorist get so cought up in their liguistic gymnastics that they forget the
real purpose for conducting research: to provide solid proof of best
practice. What other method does the field of social science have but
historically proven methods for providing effective service? I would just
like to reiterate my point that in my opinion Vygotsky's 'crisis in
psychology' has not been resolved. Practicing linguistic exercises because
one term sounds better then another serves no purpose. Is anyone familiar
with what the field of education is now using for the developmentally
disabled? Which used to be mentally impaired, which not to long ago was
referred to as retarded. The term now being used is developmentally and
cognitively delayed. Parents of these children don't need the linguistical
nightmare involved with the academic community trying to decide what looks
best on paper, they want to know what they can do and what the school is
going to do to provide effective service for their child.
Just trying to keep it real,
Eric Ramberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 01:01:26 PST