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
|