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
