On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:28:01 -0800 Ken Bromfield 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:


> Chris,
> 
> Nice one!
> That should button his lip!
> 
> Ken
> 

Since Ken chooses to place this message on the list, I will 
respond. Clearly Ken does not understand the basis on 
which I write, or he would not mistake this for logical 
positivism. My work is largely developed from the 
philosophical tradition of the later Wittgenstein, J L 
Austin, et al., and of post-structuralism. This tradition 
also informs the work of the discursive psychology movement, 
social studies of (scientific) knowledge (including the 
Actor-Network Theory approach of Latour, Law, Callon, et 
al.); it has resonance in the work of Bourdieu, of Lave and 
Wenger, and also in Vygotskyanism; Gidden's Structuration 
Theory builds on Wittgenstein's arguments on 'rule following'.

My first degree was in philosophy, and my doctoral work uses 
the work referred to above.

Sorry to labour these points, but please, let's avoid 
expressions about 'buttoning lips'.
 
Getting back to substantive matters...

Chris O'Hagan raises points which are central to the debate 
on competence, key/ transferable skills, and learning in HE, 
and this central to issues of development for staff in HE. 
Some members of the discussion list may not wish to engage in 
the debate, but I do believe that they are relevant to the 
list (because of the staff development issues which 
implicate). I trust that those who are not interested will 
make judicious use of the delete key, and not seek to censor 
important debate.

I accept that the matters I raise are difficult issues, and 
that my views run counter to the ‘current wisdom of the 
dominant group' (Conrad Waddington, Tools for Thought - he 
uses the acronym COWDUNG! - I wouldn't be so rude ;-) ). I 
merely invite all who have an interest in this area to 
examine my arguments on their merits.

First, let me deal with Chris's accusation that I am engaging 
in ‘lingustic games', and his claim that my use of the terms 
‘denotation' and ‘connotation' are incorrect. I reject the 
accusation; I am engaging in *conceptual analysis*; I see this
as essential if we are to avoid being ‘bewitched by language' 
(as Wittgenstein puts it). After working as a practitioner in 
the training field (particularly in trainer training and 
development), then in HE (particularly for 5 years in the 
Enterprise in HE initiative), I increasingly found 
difficulties with the terms (‘competence' etc).  This has led 
me to attempt to reframe the whole debate about the 
relationship between higher education and the post-graduation 
lives of those undertaking higher education (and also on 
management education and development) - the focus of my PhD 
work. My aim is to develop *better* ways of helping students 
to gain maximum benefit from their time in HE, for themselves 
and for society in general.

On Chris's comments on denotation and connotation, I would 
just say that he is not correct (I'm not sure what students 
of literature have to do with it - conceptual analysis is a 
practice within philosophy). Here are some quotes which I 
located very quickly from my bookshelves:

"The entire denotation of a word is the complete list of all 
the things to which the word applies. ... some words, such as 
‘unicorn', *designate but do not denote*; there are no 
unicorns, hence no individual things for the word to denote. 
... The connotation of a word or phrase consists of all the 
*associations* it has in the minds of the people who use it." 
(John Hospers, An introduction to philosophical analysis, pp. 
40, 42, 48)

 "...many specially perplexing words embedded in apparently 
descriptive statements do not serve to indicate some 
specially odd additional feature in the reality reported, but 
to indicate (not report) the circumstances in which the 
statement is made or reservations to which it is subject or 
the way in which it is to be taken and the like." (J L 
Austin, How to do things with words, p.3)

 "The belief in abstract objects is part of a general 
temptation to regard words as things, rather than simply as 
conventional signs or symbols (which is what they are)." 
(John Wilson, Thinking with concepts, p. 40)

 It follows from Hospers' statements above that a word (eg 
‘unicorn') may have connotations without having denotation. 
Applying this to ‘learning', ‘competence', ‘skills' etc, I 
believe that we need to examine how such terms are *used*, 
the *context of their use, what we *do* when we use them, 
etc. (See also Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations).


 I realise that, for many, this does cause them difficulties 
because they are employed on work which is based on 
assumptions that my work challenges. I genuinely hope that 
they will be able to resolve the personal dilemma that arises 
(just as I have had to resolve the dilemma, when employed on 
the EHE initiative). All I ask is that criticisms of my work 
are undertaken on the substantive issues, rather than on ad 
hominem arguments.

I look forward to interesting debate, conducted on the basis 
that serious arguments are based on serious scholarship, and 
deserve serious consideration.


Len
----------------------
Len Holmes
[log in to unmask]




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%