> I think that attempts to find a solution in
>meta-analysis to make quant. research more meaningful or crossing "weak
>evidence" to make qual. research more reliable will fail because the
>criteria for meaning and reliability exceeds the academic DISCIPLINE (i.e.,
>new and old schools, methodologies, policies for article submission, grant
>proposals) but come from the border of academic and non-academic practices.
>
...indeed. There are very material boundaries which
organize academic (pre)(post)production -
I have looked to the artistists' model of production for inspiration in
research work this past year, actually: a way to reformulate what it means
to produce meanings, which, as *someone* said (who? who?), is the
inevitable task of the researcher:
to interpet the "data' (whether they be numerically-described or
metaphorically explored/analysed) -
and it seems to me that the artist and the academic can share so much in common
and yet so very little: specifically because of the
politics of the legacy of the university -
(when my sister and I would complain about walking a mile to school in winter,
and lemme just say that Canadian winters in Eastern Canada are nothing to be
scoffed at!; my father would tell us he walked five miles to school in the
snow in his summer shoes... y'all know the story...)
which is very much the same kind of response I get from univ. folks, if I
say geez what if academics had a third choice for research, one that didn't
re-invent the university
everytime they wanted to do something interesting;
"Waalll I spent four years trying to finish my dissertation..." / "Waaallll
my committee
was brutal, it took my three nervous breakdowns to finish my dissertation..."/
Welll ya just have to learn how to jump the hoops 'cause it's what we all
did and we're better people for it!..." (actually no one has ever said this
to me. ;-)
but in the end, Eugene, I think you're right: meta-analysis invariably
re-positions
the primacy of the discipline, which is an ineffective stance for critiquing the
feasibility of change, or, most practically, as I say, for beginnning to
articulate
a radical third choice.
Mike Cole writes:
>Eugene writes:
>I agree with Diane that "solution" for qual. vs. quant. is not in schools
>and purifying methodologies but in politics, practices, and deeds.
>
>----
>L.S. Vygotsky wrote: "most complex contradications of
>psychology's methodology are brought to the fieldo of practice
>and can only be resolved there. Here the dispute stops being
>sterile.
>
>----
>So, if we generalize from psychology, to whatever melange of
>disciplines we are dealing with in this discussion, do we
>arrive at a concensus?
I want to say "sure" 'cause yer just such a nice guy Mike: _but_, [shriek!]
really, Lev Vygotsky was interested in bringing science into the
fields of practice, yes? In effect he is testing methodological validity
'in the field' as a way to legitimize the methods, which legitimizes the
psychology:
to critique the discipline itself, to ask the more difficult questions
(which are *not* "What can we do to change our existing methods?"
but "What might be an alternative to the existing methods?")
I do think on has to leave the discipline for perspective: and since
academics are always rewarded for *specializing* in particular disciplines,
it becomes difficult to incorporate critique into practice.
Id emphasize that I think this discussion is (a) not about established
methods being
challenged for their validity or utility;
(b) not about insisting that everyone abandon their techniques & belief systems;
BUT that (c) we start thinking about ways the next generations of academics
can explore opportunities for *adding* to the existing practices without
re-establishing
themselves as disciples of the traditions...
simple, really. ha ha ha ha
diane
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right."
Ani Difranco
*********************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
tel: (604)-253-4807
email: dchodges who-is-at interchange.ubc.ca