Dear Michael,
Your note asks a question about my summary: "Is there a reason why
the only references are to earlier correspondents?"
There is.
I am trying to state the questions apparent here in our discussion
rather than review the literature. This does not prevent referring to
the extensive literature on false consciousness, contradiction, and
self-deception. It involves restating and examining the conversation
on this list.
Several of us have referred to the literature. I have cited
Kierkegaard, Becker, and Freud on false consciousness, and discussed
Argyris and Schon on reflective practice and organizational learning
in terms of design learning.
It is important to clarify our thoughts and the way we understand and
apply ideas. When the thread recurred several times, I decided to
summarize the various issues and questions to see where an inquiry
might lead.
One feature of a literature review would be helpful in the
discussion. In addition to noting the external sources, it helps to
summarize what the cited authors say and explain how their views
apply here. I have done this for Kierkegaard to some degree, as Keith
Russell has done for Sartre. I also related Argyris and Schon relate
to the thread without developing the comment fully. In contrast, I
have merely noted that issues are considered in Becker and Freud, and
in others, such as Goffman, Damasio, Lakoff, and Johnson. Perhaps I
should have discussed their views.
When I have completed a summary of questions, I hope to return to the
issues and perhaps to some of the scholars who have addressed them.
Best regards,
Ken
-snip-
I am curious about the course this discussion has taken.
While I admire Ken's ability to analyze and summarize the threads
that occur on this list, I feel that the present summary risks
contradicting our other [implicit] approaches to research. A lot of
work is in the public domain in the fields of the philosophy of
psychology and psychology, on false consciousness. When such work is
available we usually encourage referencing rather than thinking the
matter through from scratch. Ken's admirable summary seems like the
sort of thing that would be useful if there were no work in the
public domain on this subject.
I have already suggested Fingarette. I could also suggest
Wittgenstein (on the ability to know one's internal states), and I
think others have already cited Kierkegaard and Sartre.
May I add that I think the subject is very relevant for anyone
seeking to validate reflective practice as a research method.
-snip-
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
Faculty of Art, Media, and Design
Staffordshire University
|