JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER Archives


PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER Archives

PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER Archives


PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER Home

PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER Home

PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER  March 2008

PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER March 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: AA Thread 2 07-08 How do i~we explain our educational influences in learning

From:

"Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

BERA Practitioner-Researcher <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:24:10 -0000

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (156 lines) , The Double Blind Double Bind.doc (156 lines)

Dear Darragh and all,

I wonder if I may be a wee bit challenging by suggesting the following:


1. 'Objectivity' is not synonymous with 'impartiality'
2. 'Pragmatism' can be thought of as 'sacrificing truth for the sake of 
convenience'.
3. Objectivity and associated propositional and dialectic logic depends on 
presupposing the presence of objectifiable - i.e. fully definable - 
'insides' and 'outsides' of discrete objects, for which there is no 
scientific evidence and can be no scientific evidence in a fluid dynamic 
cosmos.
4. The attraction of objectivity is indeed linked to issues of power, 
reductive simplification and desires for absolute security and freedom of 
'independent' individuals.
5. Through recognising the endless, beginningless, non-locality of receptive 
spatial omnipresence everywhere, and including this in a local-non-local 
logic of mutual inclusion, not mutual exclusion, 'inclusionality' 
'indefinitively dissolves':

"the crippling mutilations imposed by an objectivist framework [... so that 
...] many fresh minds will turn to the task of reinterpretating the world as 
it is, and as it then once more will be seen to be." (Polanyi, 1958 p.381 - 
Personal Knowledge, London; Routledge and Kegan Paul). [Quotation supplied 
by Jack].

6. With such a 'one as a dynamic inclusion of other' logic, opposites are 
transformed into complementarities as the basis for co-creative (neither 
competitive nor co-operative) evolutionary processes. The basis for human 
conflict embedded in a logic of 'to be or not to be' and 'C.S. Lewis's 
'whole philosophy of Hell' ('The Screwtape Letters) is dissolved.


Warmest

Alan


PS My feeling experience of blind double marking of my course 'Life 
Environment and People' by colleagues who don't know or understand its 
context, but whose assessments are averaged out with mine, often to the 
detriment of students, is indicated in the attached poem.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Darragh Power" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: AA Thread 2 07-08 How do i~we explain our educational 
influences in learning


Hi all,

I've been lurking here reading the debate and I think that the objectivity
and subjectivity debate really is one that reflects concerns about power
and identity.  There are well worn arguments for objectivity and 
subjectivity.
 My own view outlined in some previous research is:

'Action Research as a discipline in attempting to escape the traditional
dualistic view of Social Realm / Objective view versus Individualistic /
Subjective methodologies (Kemmis and Wilkinson 1998), and favouring a 
reflexive
and dialectic view offers a pragmatic attempt at a synthesis of the two 
world
views not by eliminating the differences but by simultaneously holding the
two positions as plausible:

"In each case, we want to suggest that these are false dichotomies, and that
we can escape from the partiality of each by seeing the two sides of the
dichotomies not as opposites, only one of which can be true, but as 
dialectically
related." (Ibid 1998: 28)

Action Research as an area of research respects this complexity and the 
contested
views of knowledge, and positions itself in pragmatic terms of improving
practice, based on Donald Schons notion of the ?reflective practitioner.?
(Altricher, Posch and Somekh, 1993)

In crude terms - what matters is not the theory - its what people do with
it, its how its applied, its who it is applied with, to, on, and all the
complexities of relationship involved there; with people and with the tasks
and context that counts.  I think the phrase - is justice done, and seen
to be done sums this up - how do I show rigour, how evident are other 
voices,
how universal is my claim to know etc.

In certain circumstances, attempting objectivity, could also be interpreted
as attempting to be fair to everyone or to treat people equally, and there
is absolutely nothing wrong with that - as long as the claim to know doesn't
mean we are uncovering some universal or objective truth.  Obviously with
double blind marking etc usually the student doesn't have a say in how they
are marked, but they still sign up for the course with all the judgements
that entails, so they are in some way a willing participant in the process.

In short both Tim and Brian have plausible and sensible views - isnt 
pragmatism
great!!

Regards to all,
Darragh










>-- Original Message --
>Date:         Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:43:09 +0000
>Reply-To:     BERA Practitioner-Researcher 
><[log in to unmask]>
>From:         Tim Cain <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: AA Thread 2 07-08 How do i~we explain our educational 
>influences
>in learning to improve our educational influences as 
>practitioner-researchers
>within the social and other formations that dynamically include us?
>To:           [log in to unmask]
>
>
>Dear all,
>It seems to me that the subjective/objective debate might be running out
>of
>steam. Before it does, I'd like to outline my position as I currently see
>it:
>
>
>The search for objectivity is not a blind alley. Although we can't be
>'totally objective' (any more than we can be 'totally tall') we can be
>more, or less, objective. Being more objective implies putting a greater
>distance between myself and the thing that I am relating to and can be
>achieved by such processes as 'blind double marking'.
>
>Although greater objectivity can have a negative impact (e.g. when it
>involves a loss of compassion) in some social situations (as when we are
>marking student assignments), being more objective results in being more
>impartial. In such situations greater objectivity can have a positive
>impact.
>
>
>However, I am not at all clear about how this relates to practitioner
>research or, indeed, any research.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Tim

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
November 2004
September 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager