Dear Chuck
You make a good summary with which I do not disagree. However, I think I am
in the same situation as Klaus who has raised objections to the formulation
of questions/issues prior to any responses we might give.
I would not seek to verify my introspection (by comparing it to my
observable behaviour?) nor validate my method (by constructing a defence of
introspection on Cartesian grounds?) because introspection seems to me to
have been problematized by Freud (who thought that access to the
unconscious needed to be mediated by the analyst) and by Wittgenstein (who
thought that one's impression of being able to introspect was framed by
socially determined constructs of language and use which the individual
could not deploy independently). Therefore, for myself, I would require a
frame of reference that answered these criticisms (of Freud and
Wittgenstein) before I could think of deploying false consciousness in any
argument.
At 11:06 01/10/2003 -0400, Charles Burnette wrote:
>Michael:
>
>You said: "I think (false consciousness) is very
>relevant for anyone seeking to
>validate reflective practice as a research method."
>
>Why not focus directly on "reflective practice as a
>research method". That would go a long way toward
>defining "reflective practice" in operational terms in
>a way that could be validated with regard to design.
>
>Also, there appears to be two different threads that
>are needlessly confusing the discussion: self
>reflection and ways to validate ones own thoughts, and
>understanding and counseling others regarding how they
>apprehend and validate their thoughts. My point has
>been that only the
>subject(intention,content,context,etc)is different,
>the ways of thinking about it are not.
>
>False consciousness, it appears, is being put forward
>as an objectivist construct with a Cartesian
>contradiction: Descartes concluded that "reason can
>reflect directly and successfully on its own nature
>and is therefore in no need of the aid of empirical
>research" (Lakoff, Philosophy in the Flesh, p397 )
>Lakoff does a nice job of showing how this conclusion
>is entirely dependent on the metaphors Descartes used
>to build his philosophy of mind. Cognitive science has
>made the point moot. What is left, it seems to me, is
>that validation is always dependent on whatever theory
>of mind (metaphorical construct) is operative in a
>given situation.
>
>Science has brought some underlying consistency to a
>general model that can be correlated to design
>thinking. (Burnette, C.H., 1998, Design: A Universal
>Discipline for the Age of Information, in Design DK,
>Danish Design Centre, Copenhagen) In my view, it is
>this sort of model that can help define reflective
>practice in operational terms.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Chuck
>
>Dr. Charles Burnette
>234 South Third Street
>Philadelphia, PA 19106
>Tel: +215 629 1387
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs
>in Design
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Michael
>A R Biggs
>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:30 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: False Consciousness, Contradictions, and
>Self-deception. --
>Further Inquiry (2).
>
>
>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. Is there a reason
>why the only references are to earlier correspondents?
>
>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.
>
>Michael
>
>
>******************************************************
>******
************************************************************
Dr Michael A R Biggs
Associate Dean (Research)
Reader in Visual Communication
Faculty of Art and Design, University of Hertfordshire
College Lane, Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9AB
United Kingdom
Telephone +44 (0)1707 285341
Fax +44 (0)1707 285350
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Internet http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/creac/html/intrombiggs.html
Coordinator of the Centre for Research into Practice
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/cr2p/index.htm
************************************************************
|