=2E..and as I read yesterday's mail sort of backwards I realized that this
was an example picked up from an earlier message in the words&numbers
thread that I had not yet read. And I found the
involved-but-not-in-the-game stance of the basketball coach an apt metaphor
for research work like Martin Packer's. And Mike's, too, for that matter...
Versus the reporter or judge stance of never-touched-by-subjective-hands
research. The beginning, perhaps, of an answer to Diane's question:
>if the primacy of the visual is thrown into question, what does this do
>for the
>validity of the witness? (diane celia hodges, 22.53 -0800 97-11-13)
So, well, I suppose that this is where a lot of us would inscribe
ourselves: as running coaches rather than sitting spectators.
I was quite disappointed when this was not how the example had been brought
into the discussion by Gary Shank -- being an educational researcher with
an interest in how to weave words and numbers together in my craft, I felt
an immediate urge to rid myself of Gary's sticky label of "nominalism". I
don't think it was warranted in Graham's case either, to read his posting
as a representative of:
>The notion that qual and quant methods are best used in conjunction is fast
>approaching the state of 'received wisdom' at least in educational research
>circles. (Gary Shank, 14.10 +0300 97-11-13)
Of course I can recognise a frustration with qual-quant juxtapositions that
are either produced still on the grounds of a be-an-alien no-hands
logic&ontology OR on the muddy plains of please-everybody. However, I don't
think that this was where the present discussion was heading. Rather:
>seems to me the idea is not to 'prove' our
>excess-theories(hypotheory/hypothesis)
>but to ask better questions about what we do, what are the tools of the
>trade anyhow? (diane celia hodges, 22.53 -0800 97-11-13)
The topic of theoretically founded research methods for CHATters acting as
coaches, or even as a special category of players, has been stirring in the
community for most of the year (remember the "new paradigms" thread in the
beginning of -97?). And the application of numbers on these relationist
grounds has also been touched upon several times -- although in the nature
of this medium the topic has tended to slip away equally fast as it's been
introduced...
So as:
>What we need
>very much indeed is to develop new paradigms for the use of new kinds of
>genuinely quantitative analysis, with new philosophical justifications, new
>links to theoretical discourse, new forms of integration with other modes
>of analysis. (Jay Lemke, 20.32 -0500 97-11-14)
=2E.. I hope that this time around we may dwell a little longer with the num=
bers.
Eva