Metaphor and meta-process – what’s a meta-4?

Before I grow much older, I want to try and capture where my thinking is at.

I am engaging with Werner Ulrich’s JRP article from 2006, again, and from the present turn in my hermeneutical spiral.

And Stephen Downes’ inputs about PLEs is paying off here too.

As I read Werner’s comments about the ‘discursive turn’, I am noting

it tends to divert the attention of researchers away from the need to develop new skills of critical argumentation beyond those of quantitative analysis and, at the same time, to revise their notion of professional competence accordingly[dla1] .


[dla1]Connects with my experience of ‘analysis’ eg from Dunn’s policy analysis experience – analysis is not the only way to address the complex; creative synthesis, eg via metaphor, is another (and if my understanding, of all language being metaphoric, holds water, then language is /has always been our next most primary tool for /of inquiry, ie before counting, which involves ‘naming’ quantities!); so I am agreeing with Ulrich on the discursive critique approach, amongst consenting and informed and competent peers, but also going another step to a meta- metaphor – the metaphor of metaphor.

I have also made abductive connections with the reference to Don Quixote and tilting at windmills.

Another point of connection is with

Popper’s empiricist framework of science theory [dla1] apparently did not allow him to consider–and take seriously–sources of critique other than those of experimental science.


[dla1]This is where I understand myself to be still at, as a first default …

I need to remember: no grand theories; and Model II and Model I can be held by the one person, and perhaps held in tension like most living paradoxes.

Is the next grand theory that of paradox?

And earlier still, I noted, and here is the Downes process coming into play,:

Popper agreed with Neurath that there is no such thing as a direct access to empirical phenomena that would not be mediated through theoretical expectations and interpretations[DLA1] .


[DLA1]Any word in language is a theoretical expectation and interpretation .. the map is not the territory.

Hence critique of ‘naming’.

Where did I read about that recently?  About a teacher of observation and students and fish .. and making them keep on observing … Not in the apologetics item.

Perhaps one of the Google Reader ones … no apparently

Perhaps one of Giorgio’s links … drawn a blank there too???

In bed I thought that perhaps checking my internet behaviour might point to a recent web page where this might be.  Today 21/2 I cannot check that because the desktop is ‘down’.  The during the night dreaming was involving staff at UoW FoE, both Sue’s, and confusion about my role there.  Now with the desktop down, and other responsibilities of documentation having first priority, the working on that dreaming idea has escaped me.

Found it this morning 21/2 by being patient with Anecdote from Reader. The reference is http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2010/02/keeping_richnes.html.

Reflexive reflecting

I attended the Stephen Downes lecture on 3 April 2009. I opened my account here on 6 April 2009.  I opened a twitter account on 21 April 2009.  I started to set up Google Reader for RSS feeds on 14 April 2009.

Time I took stock and reviewed my learning (reflexive reflecting)

The overwhelming feeling is of being run over by a bus … while activity at the internet has increased, so has activity face-to-face …

I have found that I can more quickly scan and evaluate the feeds of Christian sites, than I can scan inputs from sites feeding the new technology or creative thinking issues, but, that even so, scanning, when it is quick, takes time.  I am setting the end-of-day routine for the sorting scanning.

I have had one very productive flurry around stuff from Cognitive Edge, so effective thinking is very much back in my RAS (reticular activating system = foregrounded attention), and part of that is prompted by the face-to-face connections and current practice related focus developing there.

I am more aware that my notes here are notes for me, and possibly less than comprehensible to others, and that I also need to follow in Stephen Downes’ footsteps and develop a routine of writing-for-writing’s sake, and of syntheses that are referenced (though now I think about is these are two different tasks; and I can see that Stephen’s productivity is a function of this discipline being in place for some time – the scientist’s journal!!!).

Jiggery-pokery method

Last Wednesday (8 April) I was at UoW for the Research Students’ Seminar session .. and next Friday (17 April) I will be there again for the Colloquium.

The presentation was working with teacher knowledge -“Exploring the ways primary school teachers conceptualise authentic learning tasks in their classrooms” (Jessica Mantei)

Part of the presentation was spelling out ‘design-based research approach’ which appears to be the preferred mode for practice knowledge work (Tony Herrington, et al).

I am still working on understanding the relationship of this to reflective practice, or action research, or self-study, or mixed methods.

Here is how I see where Kressel fits into the picture for me:

The question of nomenclature I resolved in the end with iconoclasm: to go with my whirligig theoretical framework, I probably have a jiggery-pokery methodology.

For jiggery-pokery my current ‘best’ picture is:

and seeing this, this way, suggests it is time to do some more work on visualising …

talk about madness in my method!