Hi
In my dreams I want a simple answer or outcome to the complex questions of
life and education. I know they don’t exist and when I falsely find one it
can limit me from searching further. Is this partly what deconstruction is
about?…trying to open up any thought that claims closure, to unfreeze the
frozen moment.
One reason I "lurk" on the list is to try and find those illusive answers,
but what I really value is that in doing so I’m inevitably opened up to a
new layer of possibility instead...and I’d once again like to thank Steve,
James, Roger and the many others who spend valuable time contributing so
that I can do that.
I don’t think we can know what will come from this discussion and I don’t
think we should try and determine its outcome…because its the unprdictable
consequences which are so important... ‘the unforeseeable nothing which is
everything" (Bergson). Everyone, lurkers and contributors, have the
potential to create something from this open-ended discussion…and that
something will be unique to the individuals who create it.
Some of things which I have already got from this discussion and which I may
find useful in my work are:
- Some options for new metaphors which challenge the production line terms
which we currently use.
- Knowledge of other outdoor educators who are challenging the process
versus outcome dichotomy.
- More awareness of the creative possibilities of ‘deconstruction’.
- An awareness of some of the issues which outdoor educators around the
world are trying to address
- The opportunity to converse with contemporary thinkers in outdoor education
I wouldn’t want this list to limit its thinking to what may be useful to a
fist year practitioner, just as I wouldn’t want this list to consider that
the experiences of the practitioner are any less valid or meaningful than
this discussion, in the search for understanding and knowledge.
Cheers
Jo
Jo Straker
CPIT
Christchurch
New Zealand
At 09:15 AM 11/15/01 -0800, you wrote:
>Sorry I keep sending this just to one person (Steve Bowles in this case)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Bavis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:26 AM
>To: 'Steve Bowles'
>Subject: RE: process vs. outcomes - language
>
> Steve and Roger and any interested lurkers...
>
>I can't help but step in for at least a moment or two to ask: To what
>purpose - the PROCESS or the END/OUTCOME - is THIS current discussion
>heading/headed? Do you want to (merely?) reach a
>solution/resolution/agreement/disagreement or do you want this to be
>on-going discussion continue without ending. OR, do want to bake your cake
>and eat it too? In this very discussion you are questioning whether or not
>there is a rift/fault line between PROCESS and OUTCOME.
>
>Do we really want/need to go back in time to Aristotle's myriad
>reflections/discussions on the "Particulars" and "Essence" of "reality" to
>find an answer, or to walk another's journey?
>
>What do you Roger, Steve, James (et al.?) want - a mindful meandering? a
>purposeful pilgrimage? or, an aimless wandering? Hermes (i.e. hermeneutics)
>is always at play when two or more are gathered together in discourse. Do
>we want to find agreement (an outcome) on terminology or explore the
>dynamics of the ever changing "word"? Both? Neither?
>
>Can we really (temporarily?) escape our "western" scientific "objectivity"
>so that our subjective thoughts and experience can (temporarily) take the
>forefront? Should we? How can we?
>
>Does this discussion have purpose (seeking an end goal) or does it need
>purpose?
>
>Implicit in my quasi-Socratic questioning is the quest to set parameters (an
>ultimate goal) for the purpose of deciding how to get beyond philosophical
>reiterations (of which I am already deeply immersed:)) and onto SOMETHING
>pragmatic/practical for the so-called "lay person" (e.g. the first year
>practitioner). I hope something useful will trickle down the steps of the
>"ivory tower" of philosophical discussion but I also recognize that the
>"trickle" may have value in and of itself.
>
>I also want to avoid the ultimately non-Aristotelian (sp?) quagmire of
>"monism" (i.e. the belief that all is one). I do so because I personally
>believe to do so would put us all on the shifting sands of subjectivism...at
>best, a most difficult ground to stand on together.
>
>My recommendation: Decide the/an ultimate purpose for continuing the
>discussion. Is it for "puffing ourselves up" or is it for some other
>reason?
>
>Maybe this current quest is foundering a bit in the fog...
>
>
>Robert
>A Socrates-wanna be :)
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: To enable debate and discussion around research issues in outdoor and
>adventure education [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steve Bowles
>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:22 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: process vs. outcomes - language
>
>Yes Roger I agree - something might come from this.
>
>I also agree that we might need to keep on walking along that
>"fault-line".
>
>Language is stretched here to the limits. behavioural and positivistic
>games are one game here and hermeneutics and/or critical hermeneutics
>are another.
>
>The discussion so far has not yet asked WHO IS SPEAKING and this
>discussion so far has not yet asked about the living context ( the
>situation) of this abstracted process and abstracted outcome.
>
>Such is one face of this "fault-line" just as the
>epistemological-ontological faces will inevitably smile as we move along
>and make the pathway.
>
>But we must get real here.
>
>I tried to bring up before the Dewey links with pragmaticism and in this
>i was ready to find replies from Richard Rorty as would be a sensible
>hope. But we must get real. Few, if any, adventure programming texts
>have even begun to consider such texts and we must seek out educational,
>philosophical, experiential, pedagogic and similar texts and discussions
>for help and communication so long as adventure programming texts are
>the easy to follow and shallow to wade rivers of discontent.
>
>Am I dropping "names"? I do not think so.
>I am however dropping any expectations knowing what I know about
>mainstream literature concerning adventure programming.
>
>It might be that we need to invite more "outsiders" to join the
>conversation.
>At least then the wider community of research would see that we are
>willing to try.
>
>But maybe a book or text might be discussed to help us walk our pathway.
>
>That way we might all learn a thing or two together - other discussion
>lists do this.
>
>But maybe we simply need to begin with the big stories like positivistic
>behaviour schemes and the many alternatives to any mirror of
>nature/representational stuff.
>
>Who speaks and with what ?
>
>best wishes
>steve b
>
>Roger Greenaway wrote:
>
>> As Steve has picked up this thread again, I wonder if others will
>> too?
>>
>> There is the possibility of quite a creative outcome to this
>> thread whether it's a clarification of terms or the
>> discovery/creation of an area of research where it is useful to
>> think of ''process'n'outcome'' as bound together and inseparable.
>>
>> My last comment in this thread was that I felt 100% confused
>> following James's comment about his willingness to plug students
>> into the wall if it worked, but not wanting to be characterised
>> as an outcomes person (since followed by announcing on this list
>> the award of 'Research Site of the Month' for an outcomes study)
>>
>> To put this kind of argument to the test I have painted myself
>> green and I plead with everyone I meet not to call me a
>> green-painted person.
>>
>> OK - I am forcing the issue. But is this not how (academic)
>> dialogue proceeds? It is because I am confused that I am seeking
>> enlightenment. Maybe someone can help James explain his point or
>> help me understand it?
>>
>> The process/outcome issue is far from being a trivial one. It is
>> a major fault line running through the history of research in our
>> field. Here is an opportunity for us to do something about it.
>>
>> Roger Greenaway
>> Reviewing Skills Training
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://reviewing.co.uk
>
>
|