Dear Jack and Joan,
"I'm not too sure if Alan was meaning that the use of such criteria can be
part of an unwitting support for an intransigent use of language. I'll ask
him."
No way! I was writing in support of those criteria, especially with regard
to reflecting rigorously about the appropriateness of choice of verbal
language in relation to its intended meaning. I do notice that it is very
easy, in order to be 'accepted', to use language in a way that is not
appropriate to a transigent ('open') intention and hence to allow an
intransigent ('closed off') interpretation to hold sway. This is a big
problem when seeking liberation from over-definitive (absolutely
categorical, alienating) paradigms.
Warmest
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Whitehead" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Your AERA paper
On 4 Apr 2010, at 13:18, Joan Lucy Conolly wrote:
> Dear Jack
>
> Here is the resend ... this is what Alan was referring to ...
>
> I hope that you get it this time.
> Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Joan - got it. I like the criteria for rigour - They will complement
Richard Winter's six criteria - the more individuals (and validation groups)
can focus on using these criteria the more they will help to enhance the
qualities of validity and rigour in the self-study/action research accounts.
I'm not too sure if Alan was meaning that the use of such criteria can be
part of an unwitting support for an intransigent use of language. I'll ask
him.
Just about to have a Sunday roast dinner - Rebecca and Simon have come round
and Rebecca is waiting, non too patiently for the arrival of her first
offspring!
Love Jack.
|