I think looking at specific cases is a useful way to ground this conversation.
5D is a very good one, because there are many researchers involved, it includes
participatory observation, and many of the field notes come from students who
do not share in a theoretical understanding that is equivalent to Michael Cole.
What influences what they observe? Is there eclecticism with their actions,
because, as neophytes, students may not see development happening right before
them as well as a more experienced other? This is not critisism of 5D -- but
more aimed at being critical of what claims of eclectisism will themselves
stand to analysis.
Here is another situation to take a look at -- considering the differences in
the goals, methods, research community, etc. of the research of vygotsky,
piaget, and bruner, would a contemporary study be called eclectic that
addressed "the relationship between the zone of proximal development,
scaffolding, assimilation and accomodation"? I mean, damn, a study that
attempts to bring together theoretical constructs that might be considered by
some to be incommensurable, could be eclectic! Can we determine if this is so
only by reading a research paper on this topic, or must we look more closely at
the work of the researcher? See, I think there are several forms of "disparate
ensembles of tertiary artifacts" to draw upon, and this last one is more of a
theoretical collection, than an experimental collection or some mix.
bb
--- Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
>
=====
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 01:00:49 PST