With the development of new tools and technology, we got many
different ways to share our findings with the audiences. In what way and how
our research could survive in the jungle of information age seems another boundaries
for us. At the course, I was thinking about the creative and genius way to
represent the research, especially in a qualitative sense. This question always
leads me to think about the concepts of audience, democracy, equity and accessibility.
When we decide to use one method. That method might has its own limitations for
readers and audience. For example, I want to develop one apps for the android
phones as my thesis. In this sense, I already disregard most of the poor
people, or the people who do not want to prefer the technological devices. This
case always produces its own dilemmas for us.
The other things is that how I can represent the phenomenon
defined by my contributors who can be participants, friends, teachers and
others. How I can represent their way of interpretation with the minimum influence.
In other words, I can decode their sharing for coding for the representation. I
need to read and think more about the clashes of intentions based on Decoding
and Coding praxis for representation of findings.
Indeed, the focus of our work will certainly act to narrow who does and does not engage with our findings. There will always be that tension. I really appreciate your point around equitable representation and accessibility. I wonder where these concepts intersect with ethical practice. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteAristotle in Nicomachean Ethic (Rowe & Broadie, 2002) classifies the knowledge into three general categories; Phronesis, Episteme and Techne. Phronesis has always been defined as an experiential knowledge. It emerges from our our practices. The second one, Episteme is thematized by many famous scholars like Foucault. I think that it generally codes our judgmental practices as a generalizable knowledge. The last one is Techne which is based on our instrumental rationality. All of frames to understand the origins of knowledge can be regarded as an ethical practice. For me, each has a kind of translation from the practice to theory, the act of doing to the act of expecting and the act of awaking to the act of waking. This translation, for me, should be ethical for creating the ground to others possibility of imagination and acting. I can make some connection with some discussions like, governmentality, dialectical imagination and intersubjectivity. Most of them aim to frame the ground for the moral principles of translation considering the possible plausible existence in context and time.
ReplyDeleteRowe, C., & Broadie, S. (2002). Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics.