Dear David and Steve,
Thank you for these good posts.
This puts me in mind of the rich variety of research methods that
Herbert Blumer used to discuss -- see, esp., the chapter on the
methodological perspective of symbolic interactionism in his
classic text Symbolic Interactionism, still in print at University
of California Press.
Also thinking of the rich range of methods used in hermeneutics,
esp. the early classical hermeneutics used in Biblical and
juridical scholarship, and in Wilhelm Dilthey's work.
Best regards,
Ken Friedman
David Barry wrote:
--snip--
... it's not whether you use a particular medium or not; it's the questions you ask and
the sensitivity you cultivate that matters. Some of the questions I remember him
asking were (Antonio, correct me if you're reading this!):
>
>What jumps out at me--what am I attracted to and repulsed by?
>
>How would it be to 'live' here--in this setting, this problem, this exchange . . . ? What
would I like and not like?
>
>What do I smell? (and then there's always 'How do I smell?")
>
>What are my feelings as I linger?
>
>What's funny?
>
>There were others, but I've misplaced my notes!
>
>If I were to extend the answers from this into some next steps, I might look for the
'hot' spots--linger longer in those areas/concepts that are somehow potentially
attractive (rather than potentially explanatory). I might dwell around those areas until
some kind of satisfied feeling emerges in me--instead of looking for 'stabilization' or
'saturation'. I'm not sure what next steps from there would be, but they would
probably involve narrative and storying somehow, as I believe it's more literary
narrative that best captures the hard-to-say. The opening section in Pierre's book
(Art Firm) demonstrates this really well (where he talks about his father's death)--
there's the point he's trying to make, but then there's another series of points which
can only be felt and which come out long after the first reading.
>
>So in addition to thinking about the mediums we might use, and whether these
trigger 1st level (which for me is more cause and effect) thinking or second order/
level (aftereffects, beyond cause) outcomes, I'd like to hear about the steps and
questions others use when they're researching. David
--snip--
Steve Taylor wrote:
--snip--
When I think about the relationship between instrumental (or ©¯serious©˜)
activities and the arts, I find myself drawn back to the work of Ellen
Dissanayake (©¯Art and Intimacy©˜ and ©¯Homo Aestheticus©˜). She approaches
art
from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist and suggests that art is
an adaptive variation and indeed plays a central role in our evolution.
The way in which art is marginalized in so much of modern society is a
maladaptive variation and if it persists, spells trouble for our species.
All of which is a long way to getting to my questioning of this idea of
©¯first order knowledge©˜ as somehow superior. I prefer to think about
knowing as John Heron (Feeling and Personhood) does in terms of his extended
epistemology. He defines four ways of knowing, starting with our direct
experience, then moving on to representing our knowing with presentational
or aesthetic forms such as storytelling or dance, and then representing our
knowing through propositional knowing such as ideas and theories, and
finally pragmatic knowing that is expressed in action.
The academy may privilege propositional knowing (at the expense of
presentational knowing and pragmatic knowing and experiential knowing), but
that doesn©ˆt mean that©ˆs the way it should be.
--snip--
|