The problem I see with this mike, that of systematic interrelation as a
criterion for theoretical non-eclecticism, is that it is based upon a static
view of knowledge on an ideal plane. Rather, if we take knowledge as dynamic,
that even when in the balance of internal/external its most internal form is
still action, then perhaps theory-in-action with the systemic interrelation
including external physical, social and artifactually mediated action, would be
a more inclusive criterion. Ideas can relate to each other through more than
ideal relationships -- they can relate to each other through the actions that
they mediate.
Hence, the sense I am building of non-eclecticism is broader, yet dynamic.
bb
--- Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> Bruce-- I am late on this discussion, but my understanding of eclecticism
> is connected to the methods/methodology discussion. So Victor talking
> about AT and artifact mediation and pointing out there are other approaches
> is irrelevant to whether one is talking ecelcticim or not. Rather, if one
> uses a hodepodge of methods with no systematic ideas about how they relate
> to each other and relate theory to data, THAT is eclecticism. That different
> theoretical approaches may play complementary roles in examining a
> phenomenon is a different matter.
>
> That, of course, is just me writing. It would be interesting to know what
> Victor would say.
> mike
>
=====
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:02:05 PST