Re: past/future in present

David Dirlam (ddirlam who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu)
Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:37:15 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Eva Ekeblad wrote:

The book (chapter etc.) I'm writing functions as the
> instrument for transforming my relation to the phenomenon I'm treating,
> and if I'm doing it well my product may contribute to others' paths of
> learning, too. So of course it is important that imagination does not equal
> fantasizing without anchoring in reality or without awareness of the
> researcher's part in the bigger picture. Just like the education of
> attention that Patricia Zukow writes about, the researcher needs to educate
> imagination. Learning the difference between good imagination and bad
> imagination. Learning the different applicable modes of imagination: when
> to "listen imaginatively to your phenomenon" and when to confront
> imagination with the hard edges that burst soap bubbles but cuts diamonds
> into wonderful facets... I think what I'm trying to say is that imagination
> can be usefully deployed in research when we strike a balance between the
> gullible face of imagination and the critical "finger" of imagination
> (inventively probing for the faults in what we are producing as research.)
>
Eva gives us a beautiful metaphor of soap bubbles and diamonds and Jay
shortly aftwards added a compelling description of the interweaving of the
RELATION between reality and imagination through different frames of
reference. But Jay's next response made me think I needed to be more
specific. I've been REALLY bothered by two reifications in my life, both
of which I have been guilty of. The first is the one where we add
responses to different questions together to get one "test score" and then
treat that score as if it is meaningful (exclude a child from a "gifted"
classroom based on his or her IQ score). It is roughly the same as
evaluating a produce stand by counting the objects in it -- when pea
harvest is in, it's a terrific stand, but on watermelon day it does pretty
poorly. My solution to this dilemma has been to identify a practice and
count the times it occurs. True, it's not perfect because the practice has
a different meaning in different situations/times/people. But I believe it
is more than just a new frame -- it gives us more opportunities to test
our preconceptions than test scores. In Eva's words, it can burst more
bubbles and cut a prettier diamond. The second reification concerns the
dynamic modeling that has just emerged in developmental research in the
last decade. One can use the models as metaphors (to aid the imagination)
or one can create parameters with them and even give these parameters
meaning. But unless one also defines ways of testing these parameter
values outside of the situation that generated them, the values are just
reifications with the same potential for destructiveness as IQ scores.
Providing the way of testing parameter values is not just a shift of
frame, it makes a clearer separation between reality and imagination.

David