A key factor in all this is the extent to which the researcher, and the
critical case is when we are also "bashers" or severe negative critics, is
so positioned relative to the community as to bear the brunt of the
consequences of his/her criticisms and alternative proposals.
I conclude, among other things, that it is ethically questionable to bash
from a safe outsider status, and that such a status is also
methodologically questionable and epistemologically risky. There are a
number of disciplines today, including the natural sciences, where
discussions are taking place about the systematic distortions of the
"outside observer" paradigm for accounts of systems to which observer must
and do always belong in some strong sense for their observations to have
validity (a paradox). Once we shift to the more postmodern perspective in
which we recognize that we are always in some sense insiders as observers
(i.e. redefining the system under study to include analysis of our own
practices), then the real question becomes the precise nature of our
relationship with and participation in the system. What factors matter? and
in what ways? I believe that vulnerability to consequences is one of these
factors. I am a long way from an adequate analysis of these issues, and any
ideas or suggestions are most welcome!
Martin Packer wondered if we weren't taking bashing of schools too far, and
if we had proper 'standing' for doing so. Mike Cole reiterated the dangers
of not seeing failure as systemic and highlighting it. I had my say on all
that earlier. Naoki Ueno and Mark Clarke offered us more positive
directions and both their suggestions seem to me to critically depend on
the insider/outsider conception, as does the core of Martin's misgivings.