[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] the spirt and value(s) of CHAT research
One further comment giving Bird-David the opportunity to respond to the
The way in which Bird-David responded to the multiple commentaries
seems relevant for how to proceed with action research. For Bird-David the
CENTRAL issue is one of authority - whether authority is given to
relational ways of knowing [how, where, when, how much, by whom, etc] in
In other words, the question becomes:
What do people become attentive to?
Not that one attention structure is more valid than another, but rather
which attention structure do we value and give authority in our lives.
Contemporary Western values of attentiveness focus on humans as
individualistic individuals and devalue other *attentional structures*
For Bird-David, it is important to explore these different *attentional
structures* which are the *object* of his inquiry. Each type of attention
structure develops a different type of social structure.
Returning to action research as a topic. I wonder where there are case
examples where alternative relational attention structures have developed
over an extended period of time and offer alternative living models.
For example, in the Reggio Emilia region of Italy, a large scale
transformation in early child learning focussing on valuing relational
attention structures in has developed and is transforming ways of learning
If the central issue as Bird-David states is whether relational ways of
knowing are given AUTHORITY, then we could look to places/times where this
authority and the attentional structure of relatedness is central to the
Martin, thanks for this article and your passion for questioning
PS here is a link to Reggio alliance if interested
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Larry Purss <email@example.com> wrote:
> I wanted to highlight a key point from the Bird-David article [on page
> S80] which is a commentary by Alf Hornberg responding to the Bird-David
> article. Alf Hornberg wrote,
> "If the presence or absence of 'relatedness' is a general existential
> problem, Bird-David has adressed nothing less than the problem of modernity
> itself. Yet there are few indications that the argument belongs within a
> wider TRADITION than a rather parochial anthropological concern with
> animism. There is no mention for instance, of Weber's 'disenchantment',
> Merleau-Ponty's 'being-in-the-world' or Buber's I-Thou relationship. These
> are connections which deserve to be elaborated. It is curious how the
> phenomenological jargon on 'being-in-the-world' has infiltrated ecological
> anthropology [see also Ingold, 1996] without any mention of the sources of
> these concepts [see Gouch, 1998]"
> I don't share the notion that Bird-David is parochial, but I do see
> Bird-David's theme of looking to ethnographic data, and Continental
> Philosophy's theme of looking back at our own historical origins as asking
> similar questions concerning the same general existential problem of how we
> are connected to the world and earth. There are multiple
> disciplinary discourses responding to the existential themes of our
> relatedness in the world. These shared questions are a response to a shared
> sense of how WE are searching and re-searching for ways to orient to our
> shared sense of world.
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Martin Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Ivan, Phillip, et al.,
>> Perhaps helpful?
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Ivan Rosero wrote:
>> > Seems the other thread arrived here, and now needs its own heading.
>> > is especially directed to any among you who find it
>> > to articulate what the "science" of CHAT might be absent specific
>> > questions, intentions, and projects. I know we've got our "Romantic
>> > Science", but that's a luxury of the inner speech of this community.
>> > Outside the fuzzy embrace of our shared discourse --like, e.g., in
>> > applying for grants and begging for jobs-- we're asked to "design",
>> > "implement", "deliver", "measure", "account", and "asses". I share
>> > distaste for critiques of current Vygotsky-inspired research that rely
>> > totalizations that few of us, if any, make. Instead, as the other post
>> > helps us to understand, we're riddled with misgivings about the
>> value(s) of
>> > our research, rather than comfortably confident in the "results" we
>> > at. At least this is true for me (apologies if I've offended anyone so
>> > far).
>> > Our starting point is socially formed, culturally-constituted,
>> > multi-historically dependent consciousness. To me, there is no "prying"
>> > this open (that's scientistic talk). Many of our forefathers (or
>> > this is just an effect of translation into English) unfortunately speak
>> > "penetrating" this amalgam (where one might stand to carry out this
>> > tactical maneuver eludes me). I think we have no choice but to "enter
>> > dwell" into this view of human consciousness, slowly and with an animist
>> > spirit, but not from outside --rather moving from one inside to another
>> > inside in the very same process of working/walking with others. To do
>> > what? To create the value(s) of research --because these don't exist
>> > beforehand (that's a luxury of established scientism).
>> > So I'll end with a worry I've had for a while. Along with romantic
>> > science, I think many of us harbor a, perhaps implicit, notion of
>> > research". Is the latter really viable in the bean-counting milieu of
>> > dominant academia understands as "scientific" research?
>> > Ivan
>> > __________________________________________
>> > _____
>> > xmca mailing list
>> > email@example.com
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list