Thank you, Kip.
I like your concept of ambiguity as method (even for textual representations of research) because I am tired of the current rage to close down possibilities for interpretation so that we can produce 'findings', which can be pinned down even more securely through the metasyntheses of many findings followed by systematic evaluations. It robs readers of their agency to read and think, and turns them into passive recipients of bite-size knowledge. These practices do not stimulate or educate, they simply stupefy. I would argue that such practices are ethically dubious. Ambiguity has the potential to leave things open for other, maybe even competing, interpretations which is more likely to enable readers to agree, disagree, or come up with other interpretations. Readers/ viewers/ listeners become authors instead of being relieved of their responsibility to decide.
Sabi
Sabi Redwood
Senior Lecturer
Institute of Health & Community Studies
Bournemouth University
________________________________
From: Performative Social Science on behalf of Kip Jones
Sent: Fri 06/04/2007 10:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: On Ambiguity
I participated in the AHRC Consultation Exercise on
the forthcoming 'Beyond Text: Sounds, Voices, Images
and Objects' programme of research
(http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/apply/research/sfi/ahrcsi/beyond_text_sounds_voices_images_objects.asp
) held at the Royal Society of Art in London last
week.
The word of the day was 'ambiguity'. The audience
collectively responded to it with great collective
warmth and a sense of shared familiarity. I like this
as a concept for PSS. To me, it means knowledge
production which is open and permeable,
non-traditional, one that invites an audience in to
participate, to become involved, to turn into artists
themselves.
Researcher/artists can gain a great deal from the
concept of ambiguity as method. "Findings" in the
traditional sense would be sidelined or even banished.
Dissemination would become method. Researchers would
move from the safety of 'knowing' to the uncertainty
of 'not knowing' (Heidegger). Data would return to
its place of importance as resources for explorations
of multiple understandings and keys for further
engagement by wider communities beyond academia.
Knowledge would be constructed socially in a
relational way within a participatory society. The
researcher would become a gatherer, a facilitator, a
curator, a Wizard of Oz. Text would become only one
tool within a toolbox of many instruments. Silence
would be golden.
I hope that the AHRC puts its money into ambiguity.
Cheers,
Kip
Dr Kip Jones
Reader in Qualitative Social Science
Centre for Qualitative Research
Institute of Health & Community Studies
Bournemouth University United Kingdom
*************************
Website: www.kipworld.net
*****************************************
To join the PerformSocSci newsgroup go to:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=performsocsci&A=1
___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
|