Print

---

Agreed - they don't see that all we have is clothes - there are no emperors.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network on behalf of Hans Hansen 
	Sent: Mon 01/11/2004 17:26 
	To: [log in to unmask] 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: Aesthetic Research and Generalisability
	
	

	
	Why would the emperor need clothes?  The audience is blind.
	
	        -----Original Message-----
	        From: Ralph Bathurst [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
	        Sent: Tue 11/2/2004 2:07 PM
	        To: [log in to unmask]
	        Cc:
	        Subject: Aesthetic Research and Generalisability
	       
	       
	        Hi Folks
	        
	        I've been thinking of the issue of generalisability that Steve got going and John, Stephen and Violina have contributed to.  I really like the distinction between convergent and divergent ideas.  Here's the problem though: we can accept divergence but how do our differing experiences and reporting of those experiences help us with theory building? 
	        
	        This link between method (how we do aesthetic research?) and theory building (what do our findings mean?) is what I'm currently struggling with.  I think aesthetic research enables us to make intuitive leaps but when it comes to describing these logically so the wider academic community 'buys in' to our ideas, then we have a problem.  Do we just, then, accept divergence and use that as a defense or is there an approach that acknowledges the uniqueness of aesthetics and yet is acceptable to the non-aesthete?
	        
	        My colleague in an office down the corridor from mine says:  "Your emperor has no clothes!"  I'm struggling for a response. . .
	        
	        Ralph