Ed -
My thought when in conversation with Jack was that supervisor and student
co-generate standards of judgment as the production of the thesis (the
argument, not the artifact) develops through time. However, the standards
applied during the viva by the external examiners are often not the same as
those used to construct it. However,'living educational theory' theses tend
to include much evidence of the processes that went into their production,
and the examiners are able to engage with these as they apply the usual
standards of 'unique and valuable contribution to knowledge' etc. Well -
that's how I see it.
- Pete
----------------
--On 28 June 2007 15:09 +0200 Edward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Peter
>
> Hope I have duplicated your note correctly regarding standards of
> judgement.
>
> What theses or dissertations ,or any research really, cannot be evaluated
> substantially on the basis of what the research sets out to do and the
> degree to which value is added to that body of knowledge. Value to be a
> measure of useability---a better or new tool. What makes the AR journey
> worth it! A research proposal that cannot demonstrate the academic,
> management and body of knowledge benefits being sought, should not be
> accepted as valid research.
>
> Best
> Ed
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Mellett" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: 18 December 2002
>
>
> Jack -
>
> Our last conversation helped me to add the next step to my attempt to
> elucidate the form of living standards of judgment. . . . The progression
> currently runs as follows (using my best Tractatus-esque mode of linear
> reasoning):
>
> * We cannot say what a standard of judgment is.
>
> * We cannot describe standards of judgment using propositional forms of
> language and logic.
>
> * Within a dialogical and inclusional conversation with another, we know
> when we have agreed a standard of judgment and applied it to the matter on
> hand: it enables each of us to say "I now know that you understand what I
> mean".
>
> * We co-generate living standards of judgment as we enquire into our forms
> of life and share them within educational action enquiries.
>
> * Collaborators within an action enquiry agree standards of judgment in
> order to progrees their enquiry.
>
> * There are certain positive personal attributes and certain appropriate
> modes of enquiry that dispose people to being able to collaborate within
> an
> action enquiry and to co-generate the standards of judgment required to
> confirm that current aspect of the enquiry as being educational.
>
> * It is possible to describe/depict/represent those attributes and modes
> of
> enquiry that encourage the co-generation of standards of judgment.
>
> * What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence (but that, dear
> Ludwig, does not mean we can't try to SHOW each other what we mean by
> using
> webcams, Facebook and other such e-delights not available to you in 1917).
>
>
> - Pete
|