Maybe we are taking different routes to the same destination?
James wrote (23/10/01):
''I don't see any point in arguing about which is more
important (process or outcome) because its an artificial
distinction. There is no outcome without process, there is
process without outcome. So why bother with it? They are rolled
into together, they are one and the same thing. I have no idea
why people get funny preferring to focus on 'process' or
'outcome' - maybe someone can enlighten me. ''
James, do you mean why bother with 'process' or why bother with
making distinctions between 'process' and 'outcome'?
If 'process' and 'outcome' really are one and the same thing, how
would your research writings read if 'process' is substituted for
'outcome' and vice-versa? How could we have a useful discussion
about ends and means if we start off by saying that ends and
means are ''one and the same thing''?
Making distinctions and defining terms is surely an essential
part of the academic rigour that you are keen to promote.
I suspect that what you really mean is that you do not believe
that taking sides on a process vs. outcome debate is going to get
us anywhere. I think it is an issue that will always be with us.
We cannot and should not bury it by blurring terms, but I think
we can move on by welcoming and exploring different points of
view - and that we can assist this by promoting and sharing
research studies (and research programmes) that have a balanced
approach investigating both outcomes and processes (and maybe
a few other angles as well). This was the line that Jon Barrett
and I took in our review of research - 'Why Adventure?' (1995).
I admire your thorough approach to course evaluation and the fact
that it includes both processes and outcomes. (I also like
carrying out evaluations during a course as this helps to keep
things on track, or allows a changing of tracks if more promising
tracks are found during the course.)
We need you James. Please don't leave us - especially for the
world of alternative therapies where there tends to be even less
academic rigour around!!!
I don't think you need to keep firewalking on your list of
possibilities in order to emphasise the importance of outcomes.
Academically rigorous studies suggest that you should keep well
away from these flames - because of the concerns about process
that they raise. The process? Exploitation of ignorance. The
outcomes for firewalkers who discover how they have been
exploited may well be the exact opposite of what was intended.
The quotes below come from an article about an experiment in
1985:
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~seckel/firewalking.html
''Because firewalking seems to be impossible to most people it
can also serve as a very powerful manipulative tool in convincing
the walker that questionable material taught by a charismatic
leader is correct.''
''In reality, firewalking has very little to do with training and
meditation. The explanation rests instead with the simple laws of
physics concerning the transfer of heat.''
''There still exist many stunts that do require special training
and mental preparation; however, being able to sort out the ones
that do from the ones that don't will allow you a better
understanding of human potential.''
The quote below comes from Prof. Robert Carrol's conclusion of
his review of the research:
http://skepdic.com/firewalk.html
''Should a person be elated at overcoming the fear of firewalking
and successfully walking through the fire pit without getting too
severely burned? No. The fear is due to ignorance and the elation
will surely turn to bitterness when the firewalker finds out that
what they have accomplished can be done by just about anyone. On
the other hand, those who are depressed because they could not
produce the "courage" to walk the coals might take some
consolation in the fact that with a little knowledge courage
isn't needed.''
When it comes to using adventure for educational purposes maybe
'small is beautiful'?
Roger Greenaway
Reviewing Skills Training
[log in to unmask]
http://reviewing.co.uk
|