Going over the comments so far, I realize that I missed diane's point, that
it's all theatre, which I don't disagree with. I just believe strongly in
the everyday as a site for intervention. Performance artists 'go there' -
but the effects they have are contained within the arts/ a critical
community. Outside the brackets devoted to thinking in terms of artifice,
we need to do more to intervene in the constructions we live through.
Nate's question re: the different school-university relationship here vs
finland seems to problematize the question of the researcher's relationship
to participants in the AS. The change development lab may be able to count
on participants fully motivated to change the nature of their activity, but
most of us in the U.S. have reasons to be concerned about phase I of the
research. Maybe Phase I needs more theorization from AT researchers who
encounter problems there. Phillip's message was extremely helpful in my
thinking about these things. 1) with respect to phase 1 and on, for the
researchers' self-introduction and as a guideline throughout, Phillip's
team used a metaphor that made ethical issues tool-ish -- The researchers
are a tool with artificial intelligence for others in the A.S. to use. 2)
Be explicit throughout and repeatedly about your role, the moves it allows
you to make, and your reasons for making them. 3) This makes it possible
for participants to "engage in (the researchers') motivation; address
expectations, and make adjustments in the terms of research. 4) require
that p's reflect on why those adjustments were needed. 5). USE AN OUTSIDER
TEAM
As for different ASs, since the object is itself an AS, I would think that
in the analysis of the object other actants and ASs emerge. Does that make
sense to you, Nate? or do you see that as not 'enough'.... It would seem to
work to elucidate the difference in funder's that Phillip's team is facing
re: motivation et al.
Personally, I'd like to pursue Katherine's suggestion that we explore the
metaphor of the springboard (see her appended comments below)
Does anyone have any more to say about these or other issues?
(Katherine's comments):
>The notable things to me about chapter 5 are the ideas of arriving at a
point in analysis where participants have a provided language for working
out a springboard for transformation, and the relationship between an
individual's personal experience and reflection that may start constructing
a springboard, and how this related to the overall transformation involving
others in the system. My question is about how one gets from the experience
of the individual as he/she looks at the system in a new way, or begins to
experience/participate in a new way(the personal experience of revelation)
and how this relates to what happens to the rest of the members of a
community. How is this experience communicated?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:22 PDT