Re: synthetic/eclectic
Eva Ekeblad (eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se)
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:33:04 +0200
At 11.40 -0700 99-04-04, Mike Cole wrote:
>Hi Chuck-- You wrote in part
>
>> The seeming contradictions or diofferences
>>are often because of different issues foregrounded or different problems
>>addressed. But then that suggests that the conceptual vocabulary and
>>research studies of one may provide more useful tools for certasin kinds
>>of applications and problems, and the conceptual vocabulary of another may
>>be a better fit for others. So it is useful to sort out, who does what.
>>Further, if we want to use the conceptual vocabularies of both within the
>>same project, study, or task, it becomes useful to see what work each is
>>doing and how they can be intelligibly coordinated. of both within the
>>
>>same project, study, or task, it becomes useful to see what work each is
>>doing and how they can be intelligibly coordinated.
>
>I agree with this. In lab a couple of weeks ago, Yrjo focused on places whe=
re
>there are really deep differences and they shouldn't be glossed over (in ou=
r
>discussion with Urs Fuhrer about his book). I am not in favor of papering
>over differences to be nice, but rather, of the kind of sorting out you
>speak of. The problems of people using their vocabulatires for very differe=
nt
>kinds of objects/obejctives makes me constantly suspicious of claims for
>deep differences-- they may or may not be there.
Sorry for cascading, but it seemed appropriate since I disagree neither
with Mike nor with Chuck, but wanted to add to their general scheme of
things that MY constant suspicions of claims of deep difference have a
tendency to glance in the direction of all those reasons for image-making
we encounter in our academic careers -- I'm right now reading Latour's
*Science in Action* and cannot help hijacking it to the other side of
academia.
Eva