 |
 |
Alan, Well, yes -- and also no. I don't think it ever gets really solid and probably wouldn't like it if it did. But there is such a thing as "good enough" (I like DWWinnicott's idea of a "good enough mother") and we know when it has reached this point from somewhere inside ourselves. This paper has not reached this point for me as yet. Harriet -----Original Message----- From: "A.D.M.Rayner" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Jun 17, 2005 9:47 AM To: Harriet Meek <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: How do we know? Harriet's beginning of a paper. . . Dear Harriet, Maybe you miss my point. Belief in the need for solidity is the problem. Love and respect Alan ----- Original Message ----- From: Harriet Meek <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 17 June 2005 15:11 Subject: Re: How do we know? Harriet's beginning of a paper. . . > Hi, > > Yes. I am never sure we reach the point of being solid. But I am > particularly anxious about this paper because of the nature of its > evidence. I am sure we will get into this in the next section of > the discussion. > > This paper developed, as many written by practitioners do, out of some > observations made in the course of my ordinary work. I didn't consider > it RESEARCH for a very long time. Yet I think what I noticed and the > PROCESS I followed to explore my observations is very valid as research > and in fact points out a sort of model for practitioner research which > can be very useful, potentially even important. But questions like > "What is valid evidence? ' become important with such processes. And > what is to be done about human subjects review processes when one > doesn't realize one has done a piece of research until afterwards? > > Harriet >