On 24 Jan 2007, at 20:22, Brian wakeman wrote:
I wonder whether we have explored fully enough the idea of truth
being relational and more personal: ie. that truth is not necessarily
an abstract conceptor in research a set of categories or a check
listwehave to subscribe to for verifying truthclaims......but more
"being true", same root as troth'. 'Trustworthiness', 'faithfulness'
in relational ethical terms to the people involved in the research,
or to our potential audience?
Recently I've been reading about 'truth' in Hebrew thought that has
this relational and ethical dimension according to Brian Walsh and
Sylvia Keesmaat(Colossians re: Mixed. Subverting The Empire.
Paternoster Press 2005)
Similarly 'love': "Chesed", 'peace': 'Shalom', 'respect','fairness'
and 'justice' : 'Sedeq'......are all activities, actions, something
we do, rather than concepts we talk about..... according to the
ancient Prophets. Apparently the O.T. idea of 'covenant' is similarly
rich and meaningful.
On 25 Jan 2007, at 17:27, Brian wakeman wrote:
>
> but what do people feel about the questions I expressed about the
> truth of our practitioner research?
Dear Brian and All, I think we've lots more to do in developing our
understandings of the nature of the standards/discernments that are
appropriate for evaluating/assessing/judging the truth in
contributions to knowledge of practitioner-researchers. I've been
influenced by three different epistemologies. In propositional claims
to knowledge, truth is usually assessed in terms of the relationships
between concepts. Contradictions between statements are not permitted
under the Aristotelean Law of contradiction. Dialecticians hold a
different view of truth where living contradictions are the nucleus
of dialectics. Truth is a practical matter. I like the way Feyerabend
writes in his Against Method that the meaning of truth can be
understood in the course of its emergence in practice. Followers of
Merleau-Ponty and his Phenemenology/Primacy of Perception stress the
importance of embodied knowledge. Polanyi in his 1958 Personal
Knowledge, stressed the importance of a logic of affirmation and the
need to strip away the crippling mutilations of centuries of
objectivist thought. Barbara Thayer-Bacon in her book on Relational
(e)pistemologies writes:
"I offer a self-conscious and reflective (e)pistemological theory,
one that attempts to be adjustable and adaptable as people gain
further in understanding. This (e)pistemology must be inclusive and
open to others, because of its assumption of fallible knowers. And
this (e)pistemology must be capable of being corrected because of its
assumption that our criteria and standards are of this world, ones
we, as fallible knowers, socially construct." (Thayer-Bacon, 2003, p.7).
What I like about what you are saying Brian, is that love, respect,
fairness and other ethical values are all activities, something we
do. Eleanor's doctoral thesis on Love at Work shows how love can be
expressed as a living standard of judgment in the academy. Eleanor
clarifies her meanings of love in the course of love's emergence in
the practice of her enquiry. Marian has shown how a living meaning of
passion for compassion can emerge from her inclusional and responsive
practice. I'm suggesting that you your focus on the idea of truth
being relational and more personal is crucial in developing world
leading standards of judgment from practitioner-research. I'm also
agreeing about the importance of a relational and ethical dimension
and that our ethical values are expressed in our activities and actions.
What I also feel about your questions is that unless as a matter of
urgency we answer them with practitioner-researcher accounts that are
original, significant and rigorous, we are unlikely to influence the
research assessment exercise in a direction that will support
practitioner-research. To answer your questions with the potential
for this kind of influence I'm feeling that we will have to direct
each others' attention to the practitioner-researcher accounts that
respond to your questions in a way that demonstrates their
originality, significance and rigor in terms of their world leading,
internationally excellent, internationally recognised and/or
nationally recognised standards of judgment. In response to your
questions I'm also wondering if you (or anyone on the list) would be
willing to identify practitioner-researcher that answers your
questions in ways that you/we would recognise as world leading in
terms of originality, significance and rigor.
Love Jack.
|