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
>
|