Print

Print
Hi Tim - My own feeling is that you are helping to keep a most important issue in the focal awareness of the e-seminar. Like Susie I've been influenced by the ideas of Michael Polanyi and I still recall the excitement of understanding his ideas in Personal Knowledge and the point he makes at the beginning of his last Chapter:

"For once men have been made to realize the crippling mutilations imposed by an objectivist framework - once the veil of ambiguities covering up these mutilations has been definitively dissolved - many fresh minds will turn to the task of reinterpretations the world as it is, and as it then once more will be seen to be." (Polanyi, 1958 p.381 - Personal Knowledge, London; Routledge and Kegan Paul).   

I think that I am like you in wanting to strengthen the objectivity/validity of my judgments and interpretations through the mutual rational controls of critical discussion (From Popper's idea that we enhance the objectivity of our explanations/theories in this way).

Blind double marking may help enhance the objectivity of judgments. In my experience all that happens is that differences between markers are simply averaged on the mark sheets - I'm not sure that this enhances in any way the 'objectivity' of the judgments. I get the feeling that because the mark sheets are given in terms of percentages this practice is masking a genuine desire to make valid judgments on the part of examiners, by a spurious form of 'objectivity'. 

I think your points about enhancing objectivity/validity are most relevant to practitioner-researcher, especially in relation to self-study researchers, like myself, who make claims about our educational influences in the learning of others. I think responding to questions about the objectivity/validity of the interpretations is a continuous reminder to work at strengthening the objectivity/validity of the accounts.

Love Jack.

On 14 Mar 2008, at 11:43, Tim Cain wrote:

Dear all,
It seems to me that the subjective/objective debate might be running out of
steam. Before it does, I'd like to outline my position as I currently see
it:


The search for objectivity is not a blind alley. Although we can't be
'totally objective' (any more than we can be 'totally tall') we can be
more, or less, objective. Being more objective implies putting a greater
distance between myself and the thing that I am relating to and can be
achieved by such processes as 'blind double marking'.

Although greater objectivity can have a negative impact (e.g. when it
involves a loss of compassion) in some social situations (as when we are
marking student assignments), being more objective results in being more
impartial. In such situations greater objectivity can have a positive
impact.


However, I am not at all clear about how this relates to practitioner
research or, indeed, any research.

Any thoughts?

Best wishes,

Tim