Alan,
Well, yes -- and also no.
I don't think it ever gets really solid and probably wouldn't like it if it did. But there is such a thing as "good enough" (I like DWWinnicott's idea of a "good enough mother") and we know when it has reached this point from somewhere inside ourselves. This paper has not reached this point for me as yet.
Harriet
-----Original Message-----
From: "A.D.M.Rayner" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Jun 17, 2005 9:47 AM
To: Harriet Meek <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How do we know? Harriet's beginning of a paper. . .
Dear Harriet,
Maybe you miss my point. Belief in the need for solidity is the problem.
Love and respect
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: Harriet Meek <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 17 June 2005 15:11
Subject: Re: How do we know? Harriet's beginning of a paper. . .
> Hi,
>
> Yes. I am never sure we reach the point of being solid. But I am
> particularly anxious about this paper because of the nature of its
> evidence. I am sure we will get into this in the next section of
> the discussion.
>
> This paper developed, as many written by practitioners do, out of some
> observations made in the course of my ordinary work. I didn't consider
> it RESEARCH for a very long time. Yet I think what I noticed and the
> PROCESS I followed to explore my observations is very valid as research
> and in fact points out a sort of model for practitioner research which
> can be very useful, potentially even important. But questions like
> "What is valid evidence? ' become important with such processes. And
> what is to be done about human subjects review processes when one
> doesn't realize one has done a piece of research until afterwards?
>
> Harriet
>
|