Re: [xmca] Point of view in writing

From: Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think who-is-at>
Date: Thu Aug 16 2007 - 14:26:26 PDT

Kimberly, Mike,
  Although Husserl seems to have fbeen relegated to the dumpster of collective memory, a lot of his work was concerned with describing the "subjective" (noetic) state of mind correlated with the experience of any "objective" (noematic). I always found him hard to read except for the work on "internal time consciousness" but there are some studies that really illustrate this method, the titles and authors of which seem to have fallen into the dumpster of my own memory. But the phenomenologists in general have a lot to offer on the problem of providing a good description of the situation of the observer vis a vis what s/he observed

Mike Cole <> wrote:
  Hi Kim
I think all methods have pitfalls. I was trying, unsuccessfully it turns
out, to articulate
a pitfall I personally encountered.

If this is of future interests, why not check out Cultural Psych and see
what you do and don't
like about that way of wrting about the subjects there addressed and send
along something
to read of yours. Perhaps we can ground things more effectively that way.


On 8/16/07, Kimberly wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> I'm a little confused by your response. It almost sounds as if you are
> saying a third person approach doesn't have the same "potential pitfalls"
> that you mentioned. My understanding is that data collection must be
> systematic, thorough, and well-organized no matter what the writing
> approach
> used. Fieldnotes, personal notes, transcriptions, triangulation through
> correspondence, public notices, student work/journals, interviews, etc.
> are
> the empirical bases for the interpretation of the data. First person
> doesn't necessarily mean just a retrospective account or memoir. I think
> it
> can be just as systematic, rigorous, "objective," and empirically-based as
> any third person approach. Writing in first person, however, puts the
> inevitable subjectivity of the author up front on the table. I think,
> too,
> the personal voice (at least in education) may help to bridge the gap
> between researcher and practitioner.
> Kim
> On 8/16/07 11:36 AM, "Mike Cole" wrote:
> > Hi Kimberly (and Paul) (and)
> >
> > I started this with a new header because the previous notes were
> carrying
> > very long string of prior notes in them. Something to
> > do with problems Bruce wrote about yesterday I think.
> >
> > If there is disagreement about the disutilities of writing in pseudo
> third
> > person, as if objective, fashion grovelling on our bellies, handcuffed,
> > etc, in order to publish someone will have to defend such forms of
> behavior.
> >
> > My own view is the the method of explication should fit the subject
> matter
> > being discussed. You can get a feel for how I mix the two genres
> > in Cultural Psychology.
> >
> > In so far as I am using method of long term participant observation,
> which
> > is one approach I use to some of the topics I work on, I find that a
> > potential pitfall of the first person approach arises if one fails to
> create
> > systematic fieldnotes of one's activities, interpretations, guesses
> about
> > what going on, etc. from the beginning of the research up to the point
> where
> > one is writing the account. This hit me most forcefully when
> > trying to account for three years of work creating and trying to sustain
> > afterschool activities at four sites here near UCSD. At the end of the
> > period I wrote up an account of what I thought had occurred. I believed
> it.
> > Then I listened to audiotapes of discussions I had had with key
> > players three years earlier during which we planned what we would be
> doing
> > and what we thought had to be done to make the work
> > successful. I was stunned in listening to the tapes, to learn how much
> my
> > retrospective account had selectively forgotten lots of events,
> > lots of pointers (had I been able to interpret them properly) to
> upcomping
> > problems and changes.
> >
> > So, when using first person approaches, its nice to have lots of bits of
> > "objectified" materials, including one's own fieldnotes and notes
> > to colleagues (email is great in this respect) as a materialized record
> of
> > what you USED to think, or what you USED to believe was important, etc.
> >
> > And, in addition, including information that does not arise from sources
> you
> > helped to create is also useful as a way of triangulating and
> > being self critical.
> >
> > mike
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
xmca mailing list
Received on Thu Aug 16 14:28 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:23 PDT