Thank you for taking the time to respond in this way
Jack,
I was interested in reading about the three
epistemologies you have made explicit.
You have helped me understand where you are coming
from in some of your publications and postings.
I agreed with your first paragraph about "having lots
more to do".
Kind regards
Brian
--- Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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.
>
Brian E. Wakeman
Education adviser
Dunstable
Beds
|