Martin wrote,
>Wouldn't you agree with me that there's a large and important gap between
>talking about the best way to do something, and "forcing" someone to do
>things that way? I'm in no position to force anyone to do research a
>specific way, and I don't believe I would do so if I had that power. But I
>carry out interpretive research because I *do* believe it is the "best way"
>to conduct research, at least for the kinds of problems and questions that
>we typically discuss here on XMCA. For rational reasons: not because I'm
>too lazy to do 'real' science, or from a simple aesthetic preference.
I agree with you that we really should try to do our research putting our
best and honest efforts. You are right that that we should believe that
what we are currently doing is "the best" that we can come up at hte moment.
This is a mobilizing ideology of research action. As Russian literature
critic and thoeritician Schklovsky used to say, if you do not feel yourself
Leo Tolstoy do not write today.
My question is should we really believe that it is truth in our
communication to ourselves and others. I've known myself long enough to
remember how I dramatically changed my thinking and feelings about many
subjects. And I feel good about many of these changes so I expect and even
wish to have them in my future. I also remember that in my ideological rage
to mobilize myself for my own research I was disrespectful to reseach of
other colleagues whose research I could appreciated later. Finally, I have
found that even research that I don't like and may be never like pushes my
thinking and provide me with addressivity tension that motivates and
promotes my own thinking and feelings.
All of these drives me in search of new genre of taking about my own and
other people research. Like, probably, you I don't want to lose sense of
honesty, zeal, and responsibility for what I'm doing in a current moment as
"the best". But at the same time, I know how disrespectful, close-minded,
unfriendly, blind, unfair, and unmodest this discourse is. It is especially
evident when you get judgement about yourself from "another camp."
Can one's own reserach discourse be open, respectful, doubtful, friendly,
and without saying that my way is "the best" but authiratative and
responsible? I think it can... Do I know how to do that? No.... I think
I'm striving for dialogic authoritativeness, whatever it means....
>To me it is part of the character of scientific inquiry, and a very
>important part, that people engage in rational debate about the best way to
>proceeed.
For me, there is always a question can be method or way of doing things is
free from goals and values. Probably, you can agree with me that it can't?
In this case is the question of being "the best" or "the most effective" is
the right question to persue in the debate? I think it is where so called a
rational debate cut off my heart. When my cognitively oriented friend says
to me that he does not care how meaningful research is but only how good is
proof, I feel that I should shift our debate closer to our hearts than our
ratio. I want to find not a method that we agree but a real-world problem
than both of us deeply (emotionally) engaged, which is a world pain.
Otherwise I don't see how we can continue our debate in a meanigful way.
>There's always the problem that someone might be unable to
>listen, or unwilling to respond, or attack the person instead of responding
>to their ideas. I may not be as polite or as politic in the presentation of
>my reasons as I could be. But neither of these, surely, is cause to stop.
For me, the form is the content. Process is the product. That is why my
sociocultural approach calls to change my discourse and practice (including
academic one). Science discourse has been traditionally shaped after
knights' fight of honor. I'm afriad if this discourse continues there is no
way for alterantive to positivism (Diane, I try to be polite with this
description of traditional science) to florish.
>The day I stop trying to explain why I do the kind of work I do, and
>arguing for its merits, will be the day I quit research and teaching. And
>if there's a day I start forcing people to do what they don't want to do,
>may you all lock me up!
Oh, I agree with that.
Diane wrote,
>what I am hearing/reading here, in the writings from Jay, Martin, Bill
>and youself, is a belief(desire) that a person
>
>can support ways for the research/practice be collectively shared,
I'd say "that a person can TRY to support...." Of course, by the word
"shared" I'd not mean "having in common" but engagement in collaborative and
respectful goal development and decision making that may or may not to
agreements/common solutions and goals.
>and yet ratioalize ways for the
>the methological structure to be privately maintained. Or am I
misinterpeting?
No, sorry, but I'm not sure I can recognize myself in these two lines. I
think that methodology is a way of communication rather than private affair.
Somebody is saying, "your research is sloppy, because..." and I reply, "no,
it is not because..." And so on... It is true that we do anticipate such
discourse in advance but it does not become more private because of that. I
argue that methodology is a discourse that shapes our research rather a set
of rules that we (privately) have chosen to follow. Publish (i.e.,
communicate) or perish! (How sad....)
What do you think?
Eugene
------------------------------------
Eugene Matusov
Willard Hall#206G
Department of Educational Studies
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716, USA
phone: (302) 831-1266
fax: (302) 831-4445
email: ematusov who-is-at UDel.edu
web: http://www.ematusov.com
------------------------------------