THOUGHTS: research phenonema versus understanding phenomena

:

To do RESEARCH, it’s based on a PARADIGM so need a choice of theories that fit with the paradigm (because of ontological and epistemological assumptions -> internal consistency).

But, to UNDERSTAND fully the phenomena, you can use a multitude of theories (any number is good; even from different types of background assumptions/ontologies) and the more the better; just as long as it fits with the importance of answering your question (-> question (research questions) are the pushing/driving force that forces your mind into dark cramp caves to extract the rock and look at more innovative ideas).

Theories are models of the world which emphasis certain things over other things, so that you can conceive and think of the material world in a certain way -> get some ideas that can push your understanding forward.

e.g. the below picture.

To do RESEARCH, it’s based on a PARADIGM so need a choice of theories that fit with the paradigm (because of ontological and epistemological assumptions -> internal consistency).

But, to UNDERSTAND fully the phenomena, you can use a multitude of theories (any number is good; even from different types of background assumptions/ontologies) and the more the better; just as long as it fits with the importance of answering your question (-> question (research questions) are the pushing/driving force that forces your mind into dark cramp caves to extract the rock and look at more innovative ideas).

Theories are models of the world which emphasis certain things over other things, so that you can conceive and think of the material world in a certain way -> get some ideas that can push your understanding forward.

e.g. the below picture.

If we assume that each of the two men are different theories that focus on different parts of the real world; one on the bars, the other on the world outside of the jail; then what’s the point of just looking at one? (unless you want a biased view in order to push you intrinsic motivation? but actually is just deluding yourself to “motivate” yourself; it’s not actually motivation, just a delusion of the mind, because on any other day you will realise it’s a delusion and then collapse back into normality).
The point is, to look at both of the theories and see what they see by themselves and think that way. Then after you have understood both of the theories by themselves, to try and synthesis them back into (not into each other) but into your own previous knowledge
So really, what I’m trying to say is that to fully understand; first is to a) take apart the whole (using theories that focus on only certain parts of the whole, and consider what that signifies by themselves) -> = analysis; and b) join those new understandings (that are separate, perhaps mutually constitutive) back into your own internal working model (internal representation/internal construction) of how the world works -> synthesis. Babies do this unconsciously (without thinking, they automatically do this -> e.g. TED Talk -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2XBIkHW954 (Patricia Kuhl: The linguistic genius of babies). This pretty much says that babies take statistics on particular sounds that they hear throughout the first whatever years (3? 4?) of their life, and based on that develop a way of speaking. (So, the difference in accent between native speakers and non-native speakers). 

This kind of learning is also in a new (kind of positivist research) into how we can more effectively learn:
http://www.amazon.com/Make-It-Stick-Successful-Learning/dp/0674729013/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y
Make it Stick: The science of successful learning.
(I am reading it at the moment -> later I will post some ideas here so that I can move forward with my own teaching/learning).
[On a side note, this book is a perfect indication of the way things are going in education -> the effectiveness school of teaching and learning. Using positivist or cognitive psychology experimental research methods in order to get rid of techniques of learning based on intuition or tradition or popular discourse; and move teaching methods on how to learn towards more evidence-based research that are based on “objective facts” and not “subjective” “traditions”, etc.] -> this is exactly the kind of paradigmic wars that is going on in the resources in the Masters of Education I am currently studying.
In fact this kind of two-step analysis (break apart the real world and understand the parts) and synthesis (put everything back together with your previous knowledge) is one part of their techniques of successful learning.

So, just like a baby you should always be building a better and more nuanced understanding of the world, by looking at certain parts of the world by using (extraordinary models of the world, produced by other theorists who have devoted their life to creating that model of the world -> = standing on the shoulders of giants; = competitive advantage of competitive individuals); and then attempt to renegotiate those new understanding back into your working models of the world. That is how you generate longstanding understanding that you can then use in the future to manipulate your surroundings, and use as a new foundation to build more nuanced ideas into.



Leave a Comment