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

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

Ivan, Phillip, et al.,

Perhaps helpful?


Attachment: Bird‐David 1999 “Animism” Revisited Personhood, E.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

On Jul 26, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Ivan Rosero wrote:

> 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
> far).
> 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?
> Ivan
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

xmca mailing list