I think the logical-emotional dichotomy, like many other dichotomies, does
more disservice than service in many cases. For instance, it's usually
used to simplify things, to put a label on a certain piece of work,
or a certain paradigm.
In the Western tradition, one usually takes for granted the following
equation:
scientific=logical=systematic=rigorous=credible
But as a sociologist of education/knowledge, James Heap (1992), puts it,
Rigour is not the property of any one methodology;
it requires a belief that precision, under some set of assumptions,
is necessary, and (relatively) possible, in relation to a domain of
phenomena.
However, we live in an ordinary discourse world, where symbolic struggles
and violences are carried out/ committed every day (Bourdieu, 1991, Language
and Symbolic Power). Words like "scientific", "rational", "logical",
"emotional", "subjective", "objective", etc. are used in the labelling
language games, and women tend to be on the receiving end of the negative
labels.
People also tend to lose sight of the cultural-historial
contexts from which these words have arisen and start reifying these
labels, as if there existed universal criteria of determining these
categories, or as if these categories did exist clearly,
unproblematically, out there for everybody to see.
If research is understood as disciplined, systematic, inquiry (Shulman,
1981), then one cannot make a case for experimental reserch as inherently
more "scientific" or more "systematic" or more "logical" than alterantive
research approaches. With a background in statistics and experimental
design, I've noticed that human interpretations and decisions are required
just as much in experimental research as in ethnographic research. For
instance, in Factor Analysis, the analyst needs to interpret the clusters
of loadings churned out by the SPSS or SAS programmes. The "scientist",
like the ethnographer, is constantly engaged in interpretations of
data. There is no such thing as an uninterpreting researcher.
What we need to do is to try our best to make explicit the resources/knowledge
we draw on to make our interpretations.
Unfortunately, I'm becoming more and more pessimistic about the
possibility of realizing Habermas's (1985) vision of "communicative
rationality" among people. The world in most cases is not structured
in a way where people occupying different social/power positions
can engage in open discussions with mutual respect.
It's too hard a piece for the Friday weekend mood, eh? (Yes, I miss
Canadian English) :-} :-)
Thanks for all your responses,
and cheers,
Angel
-------------------------
Angel Lin, Ph.D.
City U, HK