[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[xmca] the spirt and value(s) of CHAT research

Seems the other thread arrived here, and now needs its own heading.  This
is especially directed to any among you who find it difficult-to-impossible
to articulate what the "science" of CHAT might be absent specific
questions, intentions, and projects.  I know we've got our "Romantic
Science", but that's a luxury of the inner speech of this community.
 Outside the fuzzy embrace of our shared discourse --like, e.g., in
applying for grants and begging for jobs-- we're asked to "design",
"implement", "deliver", "measure", "account", and "asses".  I share Andy's
distaste for critiques of current Vygotsky-inspired research that rely on
totalizations that few of us, if any, make.  Instead, as the other post
helps us to understand, we're riddled with misgivings about the value(s) of
our research, rather than comfortably confident in the "results" we arrive
at.  At least this is true for me (apologies if I've offended anyone so

Our starting point is socially formed, culturally-constituted,
multi-historically dependent consciousness.  To me, there is no "prying"
this open (that's scientistic talk).  Many of our forefathers (or perhaps
this is just an effect of translation into English) unfortunately speak of
"penetrating" this amalgam (where one might stand to carry out this
tactical maneuver eludes me).  I think we have no choice but to "enter and
dwell" into this view of human consciousness, slowly and with an animist
spirit, but not from outside --rather moving from one inside to another
inside in the very same process of working/walking with others.  To do
what?  To create the value(s) of research --because these don't exist
beforehand (that's a luxury of established scientism).

So I'll end with a worry I've had for a while.  Along with romantic
science, I think many of us harbor a, perhaps implicit, notion of "romantic
research".  Is the latter really viable in the bean-counting milieu of what
dominant academia understands as "scientific" research?

xmca mailing list