I am not sure why my electronic mail has failed, needed to be posted
directly and cut off.
I wished to reply to the reflections on the questions in the hope of
clarifying my view, derived from my intensive learning and experience as a
tired veteran of this approach, that these reflections should be the core
of and embeded within the account rather than discrete in which case I
see them as rhetorical.
In this approach, there is no readymade formula or receipe. The account,
artwork, defines itself in its clarification and emergence, the way it
answers and reevaluates itself. There is no recital of the correct way to
do it. If it is good then it is good. If it is bad then it cannot
deceive itself as good. It is hard to fool people. People know a good
work when they see one. They react accordingly. People can distinguish
ethics and ethos from self-obsession. People can differentiate the two
types of pedagogy. People can distinguishe constructive confusuion from a
counterproductive one. Let's give our readers/engagers credit and just
convey to him/her our work and what we wish them to know.
I wrote before as a reply
The below is rhetoric.
Discussing rigour, quality and validity per se without phenomenologically
analysing the piece of work itself is rhetorical. At best it is
pseudo-science. Maybe we can forget science and focus on Art.
These reflective intentions below should be embodied and clarified within
the piece of work as part of the piece itself. It defines it. It is
already in it or should be.
The only way that I think is appropriate to reply to the below is - Show
me
what you've got and I'll let you know what it means to me and how can you
make it better appeal and evoke me. This is what I do in reviewing a
piece
of art. There is no other way. I'll give you my own endeavours at
producing my piece of work in exchange to do the same. If you wish, let
me
answer these questions in accordance with what you want me to look at. If
I
am interested and have time and patience or obligation in doing so.
Choose
and select whatever you wish from my replies.
Besides art, it is a question of linguistics, the only way to reply to
passing the salt is to pass the salt. Analysing what 'passing the salt
mean
as a rhetoric is simply erroneous. The only way to reply to the below is
the way I just did - give it to me and I'll judge it in accordance with
what
it means to me.
Alon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian wakeman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Questions 2 and 3 of the Review Stage
> Are you a practitioner researcher working in a school,
> hospital or other professional setting?
>
> The BERA SIG(Special Interest Group) on Practitioner
> Research would like you to respond to the second and
> third questions of the Review Stage.
>
> We've heard a lot from the same eloquent writers, but
> ....
>
>
> 1. How do you assess the quality of your practitioner
> research?
>
> 2. How can we enhance the validity and rigour of our
> practitioner research?
>
>
> Maybe you have comments to make, or questions to ask.
>
>
> e.g. I ask myself 'How do I make sure that what we
> claim is happening is congruent with what is actually
> happening, what others might see in our
> institutions?
> Does the information and evidence we collect reflect
> the principles of fairness and balance?
> What checks and balances do I use to ensure I am
> seeing things clearly, undistorted by personal bias?
>
> Am I grounding my analysis in the evidence I have
> collected?
>
> Is what I write consistent, and cogent...does it make
> sense to others?
>
> Is it just a matter of my opinion, my values?
>
> Are there any criteria for 'quality'?
>
> Please do write with your down to earth practical
> thoughts ........
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> Brian
> Convener of BERA SIG Practitioner Research
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brian E. Wakeman
> Education adviser
> Dunstable
> Beds
>
|