Bill wrote:
I cannot come up with why a
disparate ensemble of tertiary artifacts (a tentative definition of "eclectic")
is a disadvantage relative to a more coordinated ensemble. It would seem to
depend upon the context -- what actions are possible with one ensemble vs.
another, in relation to other elements of activity, i.e. the object(s),
community and so on.
-----
I think the issue of "disparate ensemble" is, I think, at the heart of the
matter. At the very least there ought to be (and I suspect that in your there
ARE, Bill) considered reasons for using the mixture of methods you use as
you seek to relate your theories to the data representing "the phenomenon"
that you are analysing.
I do not use standard IQ tests as a means of seeking to assess how participation
in the 5thD impacts kids in non-fifth D tasks. I could. But I prefer to use
a variety of methods that include cases studies built on undergrad field
notes, in situe performances during specially organized tournaments that are
part of the 5th culture, and reports of changes in behavior, including grades,
in the children's performance at school. This is a disparate ensemble. But
it has a reasonably well-worked out rationale, even if I cannot always
fulfill my intentions.
I think the concern is with cases where there is no thought out
rationale for the linkages, not for cases where the linkages are
not formative of a logically necessary and sufficient set.
Do we have some sort of clear cut counter example, or constrasting
examples, to sharpen our joint understanding of what we mean by
eclecticism?
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 01:00:49 PST