Sorry I keep sending this just to one person (Steve Bowles in this case)

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bavis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:26 AM
To: 'Steve Bowles'
Subject: RE: process vs. outcomes - language

 Steve and Roger and any interested lurkers...

I can't help but step in for at least a moment or two to ask: To what
purpose  - the PROCESS or the END/OUTCOME -  is THIS current discussion
heading/headed?  Do you want to (merely?) reach a
solution/resolution/agreement/disagreement or do you want this to be
on-going discussion continue without ending. OR, do want to bake your cake
and eat it too? In this very discussion you are questioning whether or not
there is a rift/fault line between PROCESS and OUTCOME.

Do we really want/need to go back in time to Aristotle's myriad
reflections/discussions on the "Particulars" and "Essence"  of "reality" to
find an answer, or to walk another's journey?

What do you Roger, Steve, James (et al.?) want - a mindful meandering? a
purposeful pilgrimage? or, an aimless wandering?  Hermes (i.e. hermeneutics)
is always at play when two or more are gathered together in discourse.  Do
we want to find agreement (an outcome) on terminology or explore the
dynamics of the ever changing "word"? Both? Neither?

Can we really (temporarily?) escape our "western" scientific "objectivity"
so that our subjective thoughts and experience can (temporarily) take the
forefront? Should we? How can we?

Does this discussion have purpose (seeking an end goal) or does it need
purpose?

Implicit in my quasi-Socratic questioning is the quest to set parameters (an
ultimate goal) for the purpose of deciding how to get beyond philosophical
reiterations (of which I am already deeply immersed:)) and onto SOMETHING
pragmatic/practical for the so-called "lay person" (e.g. the first year
practitioner). I hope something useful will trickle down the steps of the
"ivory tower" of philosophical discussion but I also recognize that the
"trickle" may have value in and of itself.

I also want to avoid the ultimately non-Aristotelian (sp?) quagmire of
"monism" (i.e. the belief that all is one).   I do so because I personally
believe to do so would put us all on the shifting sands of subjectivism...at
best, a most difficult ground to stand on together.

My recommendation: Decide the/an ultimate purpose for continuing the
discussion.  Is it for "puffing ourselves up" or is it for some other
reason?

Maybe this current quest is foundering a bit in the fog...


Robert
A Socrates-wanna be :)




-----Original Message-----
From: To enable debate and discussion around research issues in outdoor and
adventure education [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steve Bowles
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: process vs. outcomes - language

Yes Roger I agree - something might come from this.

I also agree that we might need to keep on walking along that
"fault-line".

Language is stretched here to the limits. behavioural and positivistic
games are one game here and hermeneutics and/or critical hermeneutics
are another.

The discussion so far has not yet asked WHO IS SPEAKING and this
discussion so far has not yet asked about the living context ( the
situation) of this abstracted process and abstracted outcome.

Such is one face of this "fault-line" just as the
epistemological-ontological faces will inevitably smile as we move along
and make the pathway.

But we must get real here.

I tried to bring up before the Dewey links with pragmaticism and in this
i was ready to find replies from Richard Rorty as would be a sensible
hope. But we must get real. Few, if any, adventure programming texts
have even begun to consider such texts and we must seek out educational,
philosophical, experiential, pedagogic and similar texts and discussions
for help and communication so long as adventure programming texts are
the easy to follow and shallow to wade rivers of discontent.

Am I dropping "names"? I do not think so.
I am however dropping any expectations knowing what I know about
mainstream literature concerning adventure programming.

It might be that we need to invite more "outsiders" to join the
conversation.
At least then the wider community of research would see that we are
willing to try.

But maybe a book or text might be discussed to help us walk our pathway.

That way we might all learn a thing or two together - other discussion
lists do this.

But maybe we simply need to begin with the big stories like positivistic
behaviour schemes and the many alternatives to any mirror of
nature/representational stuff.

Who speaks and with what ?

best wishes
steve b

Roger Greenaway wrote:

> As Steve has picked up this thread again, I wonder if others will
> too?
>
> There is the possibility of quite a creative outcome to this
> thread whether it's a clarification of terms or the
> discovery/creation of an area of research where it is useful to
> think of ''process'n'outcome'' as bound together and inseparable.
>
> My last comment in this thread was that I felt 100% confused
> following James's comment about his willingness to plug students
> into the wall if it worked, but not wanting to be characterised
> as an outcomes person (since followed by announcing on this list
> the award of 'Research Site of the Month' for an outcomes study)
>
> To put this kind of argument to the test I have painted myself
> green and I plead with everyone I meet not to call me a
> green-painted person.
>
> OK - I am forcing the issue. But is this not how (academic)
> dialogue proceeds? It is because I am confused that I am seeking
> enlightenment. Maybe someone can help James explain his point or
> help me understand it?
>
> The process/outcome issue is far from being a trivial one. It is
> a major fault line running through the history of research in our
> field. Here is an opportunity for us to do something about it.
>
> Roger Greenaway
> Reviewing Skills Training
> [log in to unmask]
> http://reviewing.co.uk