The discussion in class was very interesting this week. Especially the last part about schizophrenia. I want to share a little anecdote. When I was in college, we watched A Beautiful Mind with my friends. We were all influenced by the movie; the visuals, the story, Russell Crowe:) But one of my friends was especially influenced and she told us afterward that her father had schizophrenia and committed suicide. I remember her repeating a few times “I wish we knew other ways to help him”, “I wish we could find different ways to help him”.
This anecdote kind of supports our discussions of this week, there is always other ways of finding solutions to the problems or helping others. But we need to inquire these ways.
I really liked the description of “contact zone” and the discussion we had on the subject. I agree that being so fond of our comfort zones kills RH and we never can get to the contact zone, but it is such a challenging task that I sometimes lose hope. Yet, as an educator I believe I should never lose hope and continue to do my best. I wish I could have these kinds of discussions each time I lose hope to gain strength. This blog will be a good source to return to when I suffer from hopelessness again.
Showing posts with label rival hypothesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rival hypothesis. Show all posts
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Response to Today's (actual) Reading
Thanks to Khem for setting my ship on the right track and pointing me to the *actual* reading for today's class.
I'm glad he did too.
I especially like the way Flower (et al) establishes the framework for this study in Intercultural Inquiry, RH theory, and Community Literacy before delving in to the case studies that, I think, are the true focus of this work. Each of these antecedents were interesting to me in different ways. The introduction took plenty of time defining how II was an effective means for conducting this type of rhetorical analysis. Flower states that 'intercultural inquiry makes contact with another person's richer. more experientially grounded situated knowledge" (6). I like this because it, as we see later in the reading, creates experts of one's own experience. When dealing with soon-to-be college students or members of a community center who must deal with the specter of illegal drugs on a daily basis, creating a sense of agency and expectancy is an important aspect for conducting an intercultural inquiry.
Flower goes on to situate Rival Hypothesis theory in her study. While RH theory was certainly novel terminology for me, it speaks to my interests, goals, and emphases in my own work/life. This is a functional, flexible guiding theory. Flower describes how RH is an attitude, a strategic tool, and a process all in one. As an attitude, it is bold enough to function in uncertainty. Open questions and multiple answers are hallmarks of RH, and it's this kind of mindset that leads to effective inquiry. RH also guides the types of strategies one might use in conducting an inquiry. It's possible (and necessary) in RH to actively seek out opposing claims, view a situation from a variety of perspectives, and challenge outlying views (including ones own). Building from these strategies, the process of RH is constructive in that it provides a chance to find a conclusion that is best-fit for the situation at hand (30).
Finally, and for me most interestingly, Long (et al) explicate the idea of Community Literacy in the "Rivaling out of School" chapter. Long defines CL in opposition to the 'glamorless problem' that is illiteracy. She calls CL 'action, power, and collaboration' (233). In other words, CL is "utilized wherever people collaborate and use literate means to construct shared purposes and to take action" (Peck, 1991 qtd in Flower 234). Taking the same questions to a more community-oriented situation, these researchers broadened the scope of their inquiry in extremely important and provocative ways. For those of you who heard my presentation on community food security last semester, Flower's name might sound familiar as I quoted from her Community Literacy: The Rhetoric of Public Engagement text extensively. For me, this type of community engagement is central to any type of inquiry that affects local populations.
These theoretical frameworks are individually instrumental for Flower (et al) to carry out this type of inquiry. One of the frustrations I've had with Flower's work in the past (one that RevCat mentioned in her blog) is just how time-consuming and dense this type of scholarship can be. However, if you have a chance to read the rest of this text, or Community Literacy, the bulk of the study is written in clear, approachable prose. The theory serves as an important framework for establishing a scholarly disposition with which she carries out her practical, community-oriented work.
I'm glad he did too.
I especially like the way Flower (et al) establishes the framework for this study in Intercultural Inquiry, RH theory, and Community Literacy before delving in to the case studies that, I think, are the true focus of this work. Each of these antecedents were interesting to me in different ways. The introduction took plenty of time defining how II was an effective means for conducting this type of rhetorical analysis. Flower states that 'intercultural inquiry makes contact with another person's richer. more experientially grounded situated knowledge" (6). I like this because it, as we see later in the reading, creates experts of one's own experience. When dealing with soon-to-be college students or members of a community center who must deal with the specter of illegal drugs on a daily basis, creating a sense of agency and expectancy is an important aspect for conducting an intercultural inquiry.
Flower goes on to situate Rival Hypothesis theory in her study. While RH theory was certainly novel terminology for me, it speaks to my interests, goals, and emphases in my own work/life. This is a functional, flexible guiding theory. Flower describes how RH is an attitude, a strategic tool, and a process all in one. As an attitude, it is bold enough to function in uncertainty. Open questions and multiple answers are hallmarks of RH, and it's this kind of mindset that leads to effective inquiry. RH also guides the types of strategies one might use in conducting an inquiry. It's possible (and necessary) in RH to actively seek out opposing claims, view a situation from a variety of perspectives, and challenge outlying views (including ones own). Building from these strategies, the process of RH is constructive in that it provides a chance to find a conclusion that is best-fit for the situation at hand (30).
Finally, and for me most interestingly, Long (et al) explicate the idea of Community Literacy in the "Rivaling out of School" chapter. Long defines CL in opposition to the 'glamorless problem' that is illiteracy. She calls CL 'action, power, and collaboration' (233). In other words, CL is "utilized wherever people collaborate and use literate means to construct shared purposes and to take action" (Peck, 1991 qtd in Flower 234). Taking the same questions to a more community-oriented situation, these researchers broadened the scope of their inquiry in extremely important and provocative ways. For those of you who heard my presentation on community food security last semester, Flower's name might sound familiar as I quoted from her Community Literacy: The Rhetoric of Public Engagement text extensively. For me, this type of community engagement is central to any type of inquiry that affects local populations.
These theoretical frameworks are individually instrumental for Flower (et al) to carry out this type of inquiry. One of the frustrations I've had with Flower's work in the past (one that RevCat mentioned in her blog) is just how time-consuming and dense this type of scholarship can be. However, if you have a chance to read the rest of this text, or Community Literacy, the bulk of the study is written in clear, approachable prose. The theory serves as an important framework for establishing a scholarly disposition with which she carries out her practical, community-oriented work.
Qualitative Research and Representation
Last year in Qualitative Methods in Communication, we read Lindlof and Taylor's (2002) Qualitative Communication Research Methods, where they made clear the distinction between post-positivist and interpretive research methods. The interpretive/qualitative approach includes the following commitments (among a much longer list - found on pp. 11-12):
realities are plural, simultaneous, and local phenomena
research should privilege deep understanding of human actions, motives, and feelings. It should illuminate how cultural symbol systems are used to attribute meaning to existence and activity.
true knowledge is gained through prolonged immersion and extensive dialogue practiced in actual social settings
knowledge claims should preserve the subjective experience and motivations of social actors in their meaningful performances
Earlier in the chapter (p. 6) they note that "qualitative research in communication involves the performances and practices of human communication...Performances are local and unique interaction events. Their execution is collaborative and their significance is negotiable."
I share all of this as background to the material we read for this week, especially for those who may not have taken qual methods (whereas I had not had much exposure to "cognitive rhetoric"). Clearly one of the issues in all of this is how the researcher then represents the voices, perspectives and meaning-making activity of the participants. It was interesting to me to see how Flower, Higgins, and Long argue for the possibility of representation, including a fairly strong critique of self-reflexivity (I share much of their concern about navel-gazing, yet at the same time it seems to me a strength of qual research not to make a naive assumption about the ability to fairly represent the other if one doesn't remain aware of one's own social location).
It seems to me that, if we are to have any connection with the other, we will always be representing their voices, perspectives, and meaning-making activity, if only by the way we replay the home movies in our minds. Yet that does not mean, I believe, that we give up on trying to listen in the transformative way outlined in this week's reading. The process of articulating and hearing rival hypotheses can be such a transformative process, yet I wonder, in the end, how truly the voices of those who are not the authors of the article are being represented. As we learned in qual, even a transcript of a conversation is not "what really happened." And, if the final product is an article/book chapter so dense with academese that even a language-buff academic like me is falling asleep, I wonder how the participants in the research would respond. Would they feel represented? included?
realities are plural, simultaneous, and local phenomena
research should privilege deep understanding of human actions, motives, and feelings. It should illuminate how cultural symbol systems are used to attribute meaning to existence and activity.
true knowledge is gained through prolonged immersion and extensive dialogue practiced in actual social settings
knowledge claims should preserve the subjective experience and motivations of social actors in their meaningful performances
Earlier in the chapter (p. 6) they note that "qualitative research in communication involves the performances and practices of human communication...Performances are local and unique interaction events. Their execution is collaborative and their significance is negotiable."
I share all of this as background to the material we read for this week, especially for those who may not have taken qual methods (whereas I had not had much exposure to "cognitive rhetoric"). Clearly one of the issues in all of this is how the researcher then represents the voices, perspectives and meaning-making activity of the participants. It was interesting to me to see how Flower, Higgins, and Long argue for the possibility of representation, including a fairly strong critique of self-reflexivity (I share much of their concern about navel-gazing, yet at the same time it seems to me a strength of qual research not to make a naive assumption about the ability to fairly represent the other if one doesn't remain aware of one's own social location).
It seems to me that, if we are to have any connection with the other, we will always be representing their voices, perspectives, and meaning-making activity, if only by the way we replay the home movies in our minds. Yet that does not mean, I believe, that we give up on trying to listen in the transformative way outlined in this week's reading. The process of articulating and hearing rival hypotheses can be such a transformative process, yet I wonder, in the end, how truly the voices of those who are not the authors of the article are being represented. As we learned in qual, even a transcript of a conversation is not "what really happened." And, if the final product is an article/book chapter so dense with academese that even a language-buff academic like me is falling asleep, I wonder how the participants in the research would respond. Would they feel represented? included?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)