>is this rational ever part of the evolution of a research paradigm? I don't
>see it:
My observation on genre of Mike Cole's writing (i.e., presenting of his
research) suggests that he often describes his findings as a dramatic
revision of his research paradigm, no?
>the paradigms pre-exist the research;
I'd say that academic and non-academic discourse pre-exist any research.
>the methodologies pre-organize the "data" : and while yes there is MUCH to
>learned
>this way, that is, these approaches are useful in certain ways,
The is a very old tradion of considering where you choose words to speak or
words choose you. I think a bit both and sometimes at different degree.
Being chosen by words or methodologies does not bother me, on the contrary,
it conveys that I'm in relations with other people -- I appreciate it
especially if these relations are based on love and meaning.
>it does remain distinct from the researcher's engagements with the
>researched. for example, obviously no researcher "teaches" the researched
>
>about "methodology" before engaging in a reserarch study.
Why, not? In our research with Barbara Rogoff we consulted with the
teachers, parents, and children of innovative school while doing our
research -- their views penetrated our methodology. However, you barely
find it in our report because, I think, you need to do another research to
fully reveal their contributions to our methodology. I just know that it
was the case and have several examples of that. I know that my own
observations and issues as a member of the school ciommunity and many
conversations with parents and teacher again, as member of the community
(not as a researcher) led to many inquires that later become research.
What do you think?
Eugene