Thank you, Dianne, for your response to this question.
I am particularly struck by the sentences “It moves from the concrete to the abstract rather than from the abstract to the concrete. In communication, we try to understand what someone else means "abductively", that is, by drawing upon
our experience to explain theirs. Abduction explains what may be, deduction what
must be, and induction what actually is operative (Hanson, 1981).” For I can see that herein lies a significant distinction … which resonates with my experience of so many communication interactions including those taking place on this listserve.
From: Practitioner-Researcher [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Dianne Allen
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Being inclusive.
Aga,
Yes, well said. Perception is perhaps 99% of communication .. I am reminded of (I am making connections with) Fisher and Ury's examination of barriers to negotiation (Getting
to Yes; chapter 2): separating people from the problem, and checking communication, and trying to change perceptions.
Why does an abductive thinker make multiple connections? ... I don't know whether I can explain this more succinctly Aga. I am not known for succinctness. Another way of
describing, that might help you, or others, make connections, could well be 'empathetic thinking'.
I tend to think of 'deduction' and 'induction' being linear processes - there is a line of reasoning, between point one and point two, that most other minds can follow you
in .. and there are no (few) hidden (acceptable) inferences between those steps. In my year 8 geometry I could always 'see' which triangles were 'congruent' and which were 'similar'. The task of writing out the steps in the reasoning, demonstrating that
I knew the criteria that had to be met to determine the difference between congruence and similarity in triangles, to prove the conclusion, was a tedious routine, required to satisfy a teacher, or the geometry lesson task.
By comparison, metaphoric and abductive thinking and connections tend to be much more tenuous, but nevertheless telling. My favourite metaphor is 'the moon was a ghostly galleon
tossed upon cloudy seas' (Noyes, The Highwayman).
I attach some extracts from Jack Mezirow, to show where he is talking about this, and how .. that may be helpful
Dianne
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
1. Making Meaning: The Dynamics of Learning
2. Meaning Perspectives: How we Understand Experience
3. Intentional Learning: A Process of Problem Solving
4. Making Meaning Through Reflection
5. Distorted Assumptions: Uncovering Errors in Learning
6. Perspective Transformation: How Learning Leads to Change
7. Fostering Transformative Adult Learning
3. Intentional Learning: A Process of Problem Solving
The Sociolinguistic Context of Transformative Learning
Validity testing
Rationality
The Dynamics of Communicative Action
The Lifeworld
Learning
Social Interaction
Instrumental Learning
Communicative Learning
Consensual Validation
The Conditions of Rational Discourse
The Limits of Rationality
Differences from Instrumental Learning
Learning Through Metaphors
Confronting the Unknown
Problem Solving by Metaphorical-Abductive Logic
Research in the Communicative Domain
Emancipatory Learning: The Reflective Dimension
The Nature of Adult Learning
Gregory Bateson's Learning Theory
Edward Cell's Learning Theory
Transformation Theory
Learning through meaning schemes
Learning new meaning schemes
Learning through transformation of meaning schemes
Learning through perspective transformation
Learning as Problem Solving
Summary
p.84-5 "The logic of communicative learning is metaphorical-abductive, as distinct from the hypothetical-deductive logic of instrumental learning. It moves from the concrete to the abstract rather than from the abstract to the concrete.
In communication, we try to understand what someone else means "abductively", that is, by drawing upon our experience to explain theirs. Abduction explains what
may be, deduction what must be, and induction what actually
is operative (Hanson, 1981).
"In solving a problem in the communicative domain, we start by making ametaphoric association between what is known, that is, what has been interpreted within a current meaning scheme, and a new experience. What we know then suggests the
next step in problem solving; in abduction, each step suggests the next one. We understand parts in terms of an initial impression of the whole, shaped by habits of expectation (meaning schemes); this interpretation of the whole becomes modified or revised
in light of closer analysis of the parts. Movement is toward an interpretation of the whole in which our detailed knowledge of the parts can be integrated without conflict (the hermeneutic circle). We test perceptions against this process of data development;
the more we know, the less the feasible it is to apply arbitrary preconceptions in very different contexts."
(It is interesting, at this point, in light of a recent, previous strand of conversation, here at Practitioner Researcher, that Mezirow then uses the example of the practice/process
of translation to illustrate his point. DLA)