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
|