kathryn writes
>Anyway, this is related in a way to the springboard question--if you have
>outlandish ideas about what the "problems" are in a setting, and your
>experience of contradiction and distress is not validated or valued by
>others
>in the group, what happens to you? Are you left behind as others "master
>the
>future" and make plans? where do these discordant voices go in the
>analysis?
>Katherine Brown
it depends on who voices the contradiction, doesn't it? if one researcher
in a team perceives a problem that the rest of the team will not validate
or value,
then that researcher will, likely?, silence his/herself and abide by the
majority perspective, yes? or risk producing internal conflicts that will
contaminate a team's desire for shared meanings, collective goals, and so
on?
if the contradiction emerges amongst the participants, infinite outcomes
can be possible. in my reading of research, discordant voices are most
often characterized by the research team as "exceptional" perspectives,
cast as "hostile" or "resistant" to the project?
rarely (ever?) is a single voice of contradiction granted validity...
seems to me. there are a multitude of processes for silencing that which
is disruptive to the larger flow of a process.
ultimately, i think phil capper exemplified this - how much is any
researcher willing to give up in order to participate with an activity?
diane
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:23 PDT