Jurgen,
This might well be. But I would point out one feature of the Gee quote:
research methods are based on a theory. But how did one arrive at the
theory?
If one goes on the scientific version of 'theory' (per, for e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory), it's something that was developed
using - among other things - methods of research, presumably methods
developed for the domain of study.
There *might* be a chicken & egg situation here.
I say *might* because Gee *may* have been taking 'theory' in a
non-scientific sense - which is fine with me.
My real point is: even depending on what other brilliant minds have
written, we have to be extremely careful of what words we mean, because
not everyone uses them the same way.
A dictionary of these terms, for designers/researchers remains, I think,
a good thing to wish for, because it would help us understand each other.
Cheers.
Fil
Jurgen Faust wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> the discussion here is quite helpful to rethink existing terms and to keep the discourse alive.
>
> But let’s take Foucault’s discourse in his Archeology of knowledge. Let’s see what came out of his
> discourse and the discourse, which followed and is following. I am quoting here now James Paul
> Gee (Discourse Analysis, 2007) also mentioned by Garvin earlier: ‘The book is partly about a
> method of research. However, I hasten to point out that the whole issue of research ‘methods’ is,
> as far as I am concerned, badly confused. First of all, any method always goes with a theory.
> Method and theory cannot be separated, despite the fact that methods are often taught as if they
> could stand alone. Any method of research is a way to investigate some particular domain. In this
> case, the domain is language-in-use. There can be no sensible method to study a domain unless
> one also has a theory of what that domain is.’
> And Gee follows up with a statement that his work in this book is about the nature of language-
> in-use, that is the underlying theory.
> May be we have to be anyway concerned about the underlying theory, even if we focus on
> design is taking place in discourse (with stake-holders)?
> Sounds a bit that we have to differentiate and be clear about what kind of theoretical models we
> intend?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Jurgen
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|