170 likes | 476 Views
Two men looked out through the same prison bars, One saw mud, the other saw stars. Unknown. Can I – an individual – understand how others see their world?. To what extent? How? By interacting .. Dialogue .. enable free speak Qualitative / interview based-research
E N D
Two men looked outthrough the same prison bars,One saw mud, the other saw stars.Unknown ToK plenary on Belenky et al - Alistair
Can I – an individual – understand how others see their world? • To what extent? How? • By interacting .. Dialogue .. enable free speak • Qualitative / interview based-research Erklaren(nat. sciences) -- Verstehen(soc. sciences)
Research yields conclusions, i.e., knowledge claims • Are the claims true for those interviewed? the question of validity • Are the claims true for cases other than those who were interviewed? the question of generalisability • What is the researcher’s role in making these claims? Discoverer? Inventor? Co-creator?
What of “group” differences? • Sex/race/age/culture/sexual preference .. • Can members of one group adequately enter / portray the perceptual worlds of others? • Can research done by US females in the US say anything about Norwegian (or, Kenyan) lads in Flekke?
Outcomes / “results” • Categories of outcome: “emergent” research • “Ways in which women conceive of themselves as knowers”
A perspective from which . . • Women experience themselves as mindless, subject to external authority: Silence. • Women experience themselves as capable of receiving, but not capable of creating knowledge on their own: Received (“listening to others”) • Truth and knowledge are conceived as personal, private, subjectively known or intuited: Subjective (Inner voice, Quest for Self)
A perspective from which . . • Women learn by applying objective procedures for obtaining knowledge: Procedural (“voice of reason”), • Women experience themselves as creators of knowledge, and value both subjective and objective strategies for knowing: Constructed (“integrating the voices”
These “ways of knowing” are . . • Not necessarily fixed, exhaustive, universal, • Abstract categories that cannot adequately capture any individual’s thoughts, • Similar to patterns found in men’s thinking (NB: bio teacher!) • Might be described differently by different researchers. “Our intention is to share – not prove – our findings” Belenky et al,
Do these outcomes generalise? Are they true for . . • women in the USA? • women in Flekke? • men in Flekke? Do any ‘seem true’ to you? “Reader generalisability”
“The contemporary philosophical position about the justification of knowledge . . entails . . • That claims, that is conclusions, from all research are often undetermined by the data, which means there will be more than one explanation that is compatible with the evidence, • That claims are defended, not proved, • That their defence consists of . . the marshalling of good reasons on their behalf, and • That there is no absolute justification of knowledge by either experience or reason.” Lythcott & Duschl, 1990
Students’ perspectives . . • “My answer is wrong” • “How come my answer is wrong?” • “The answer at the back of the book is wrong”