PIER – Session 3 + notes

Tuesday 8th May

Research, Subjectivity and Interpretation.

• What do we mean by ‘subjective knowledge’?
• What is its philosophical status?
• What is its relationship to objective knowledge?
• How might it be expressed and what use is it in educational research?
• Why is interpretation an issue in educational research?
• What is the nature of ‘subjective theory’?
• What is the role of language in relating objective with subjective knowledge?
• What is my position with regard to these issues and how might it affect my choice of methodology?

The third session focuses on subjectivity and interpretative research. We shall situate this tradition within the ‘triangle of practice’ we have been working with. A small practical exercise will allow us to explore the nature of subjective knowledge and how we interpret it. We will contrast ‘subjective’ and ‘objective knowledge’ in terms of underlying philosophies. How theoretical can we be? We shall continue to consider the place and role of language in expressing research knowledge. The concept’ of paradigm will also be introduced.

Practical Tasks:
• When and where are you presented with ‘subjective knowledge’?
• What can be said ‘objectively’ about the same situation?
• What is the usefulness of each?

Background Readings:
Anderson, R J, Hughes, J A, Sharrock, W W (1986) Philosophy and the Human Sciences. London: Routledge. Chapters 3 and 4.

Phillips, D.C. (1987) Philosophy, Science and Social Inquiry. Oxford: Pergamon. Chapter 9.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Chapter 3. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Morse, J. M. (1994) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage. Chapters 7, 8 and 9.

Lincoln, Y. S and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage

Moustakis, C. (1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. London: Sage.

Hargreaves, D (1986) ‘Whatever happened symbolic to symbolic interactionism?’, in M. Hammersley (Ed.) Controversies in Classroom Research. Milton Keynes: Open University.

Vandenberg, D. (1974) ‘Phenomenology and educational research’, in D.Denton (Ed.) Existentialism and Phenomenology in Education. Columbia: Teachers College Press.

Van Manen, M. (1990) Researching Lived Experience. Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press .

---

[Notes]

• Language is in the basis of lot of Philosophy now.

• It’s important to know the vocabulary of what we are talking about.

• The contingency of Language (Richard Roat): a particular language, in  a  particular situation

• Signifier and signified have no solid relation, it is arbitrary. Therefore, the relation of language with what is  signified is arbitrary (in other words, it is relative)

• Post-modernism is based in the arbitrary nature of language

• Final vocabulary: this is the best I can do (it’s different from “the truth”)

• We have to declare our final vocabulary

• Linguistic metaphors are used to talk about philosophical issues

• Discoursive practice: ….(I missed the comment)

• Language is in the heart of philosophical discussions

Langue: oficial language

Parole: individual discourse

—-

[Returning to theory]

(From the class) 

Characteristics of theory:

• visible

• falsifiable ^(Popperian)

• pattern

• communicating

• generalisable

• explanatory

• useful

• evidence-based

• causal ^(Popperian)

• comprehensible

• analytic

• feasible

• logical

• measurable/testable ^(Popperian)

 

^{[Understanding relation between theory and practice]}

^1950’s:

D

1960’s – 1990’s:

 

Currently:

[EXERCISE]