--=====================_12822174==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I am a post-grad student currently engaged in writing a thesis involving
social policy analysis. It appears that those "powerful" forces to which I
am attached (and subservient) are demanding implicitly, and to a much
lesser degree explicitly, adherence to forms of theorising that will
acknowledge (and perpetuate) the existence of a single, or (at the very
least) sets of, "objectified realities".
My problem is this, the fundamental premise on which my research thesis
rests is the assumption that certainties, as objective truths, have created
dogmatic discourses as "realities", that has resulted in a set of
particular public policies that have missed, become iatrogenic, or have
become just downright brutal and destructive to those who have been
subjected to them. It seems that I am expected to utilise an "accepted"
objectified theoretical framework, as "the" tool of analysis and
interpretation, when it is this that I am actually arguing against.
I suspect that the demands for theoretical "tightness" as empirical, almost
positivist, and therefore "legitimate scientific neutrality", involves more
than a desire for validity and reliability and is primarily political
rather than academic. I believe that these demands for "objective
knowledge", therefore superior truthful or untainted knowledge, are more
than just taking one side of a theoretical divide that has been described
as the pervasive dichotomy between the devil of objectivity and the deep
blue sea of relativism. I am aware that this issue will not be new to most
of you however, I would be very interested to hear form those who are
successfully managing to negotiate their way through it without having to
give way to, or suffer the inherent restrictions of the all powerful,
dominant discourses or the political requirements (agendas) of controlling
institutions.
DJ
--=====================_12822174==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<font face="Courier New, Courier"><br>
I am a post-grad student currently engaged in writing a thesis involving
social policy analysis. It appears that those "powerful"
forces to which I am attached (and subservient) are demanding implicitly,
and to a much lesser degree explicitly, adherence to forms of theorising
that will acknowledge (and perpetuate) the existence of a single, or (at
the very least) sets of, "objectified realities".<br>
<br>
My problem is this, the fundamental premise on which my research thesis
rests is the assumption that certainties, as objective truths, have
created dogmatic discourses as "realities", that has resulted
in a set of particular public policies that have missed, become
iatrogenic, or have become just downright brutal and destructive to those
who have been subjected to them. It seems that I am expected to utilise
an "accepted" objectified theoretical framework, as
"the" tool of analysis and interpretation, when it is this that
I am actually arguing against.<br>
<br>
I suspect that the demands for theoretical "tightness" as
empirical, almost positivist, and therefore "legitimate scientific
neutrality", involves more than a desire for validity and
reliability and is primarily political rather than academic. I believe
that these demands for "objective knowledge", therefore
superior truthful or untainted knowledge, are more than just taking one
side of a theoretical divide that has been described as the pervasive
dichotomy between the devil of objectivity and the deep blue sea of
relativism. I am aware that this issue will not be new to most of you
however, I would be very interested to hear form those who are
successfully managing to negotiate their way through it without having to
give way to, or suffer the inherent restrictions of the all powerful,
dominant discourses or the political requirements (agendas) of
controlling institutions.<br>
<br>
DJ<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></html>
--=====================_12822174==_.ALT--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I am a post-grad student currently engaged in writing a thesis involving
social policy analysis. It appears that those "powerful" forces to which I
am attached (and subservient) are demanding implicitly, and to a much
lesser degree explicitly, adherence to forms of theorising that will
acknowledge (and perpetuate) the existence of a single, or (at the very
least) sets of, "objectified realities".
My problem is this, the fundamental premise on which my research thesis
rests is the assumption that certainties, as objective truths, have created
dogmatic discourses as "realities", that has resulted in a set of
particular public policies that have missed, become iatrogenic, or have
become just downright brutal and destructive to those who have been
subjected to them. It seems that I am expected to utilise an "accepted"
objectified theoretical framework, as "the" tool of analysis and
interpretation, when it is this that I am actually arguing against.
I suspect that the demands for theoretical "tightness" as empirical, almost
positivist, and therefore "legitimate scientific neutrality", involves more
than a desire for validity and reliability and is primarily political
rather than academic. I believe that these demands for "objective
knowledge", therefore superior truthful or untainted knowledge, are more
than just taking one side of a theoretical divide that has been described
as the pervasive dichotomy between the devil of objectivity and the deep
blue sea of relativism. I am aware that this issue will not be new to most
of you however, I would be very interested to hear form those who are
successfully managing to negotiate their way through it without having to
give way to, or suffer the inherent restrictions of the all powerful,
dominant discourses or the political requirements (agendas) of controlling
institutions.
DJ
--=====================_12822174==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<font face="Courier New, Courier"><br>
I am a post-grad student currently engaged in writing a thesis involving
social policy analysis. It appears that those "powerful"
forces to which I am attached (and subservient) are demanding implicitly,
and to a much lesser degree explicitly, adherence to forms of theorising
that will acknowledge (and perpetuate) the existence of a single, or (at
the very least) sets of, "objectified realities".<br>
<br>
My problem is this, the fundamental premise on which my research thesis
rests is the assumption that certainties, as objective truths, have
created dogmatic discourses as "realities", that has resulted
in a set of particular public policies that have missed, become
iatrogenic, or have become just downright brutal and destructive to those
who have been subjected to them. It seems that I am expected to utilise
an "accepted" objectified theoretical framework, as
"the" tool of analysis and interpretation, when it is this that
I am actually arguing against.<br>
<br>
I suspect that the demands for theoretical "tightness" as
empirical, almost positivist, and therefore "legitimate scientific
neutrality", involves more than a desire for validity and
reliability and is primarily political rather than academic. I believe
that these demands for "objective knowledge", therefore
superior truthful or untainted knowledge, are more than just taking one
side of a theoretical divide that has been described as the pervasive
dichotomy between the devil of objectivity and the deep blue sea of
relativism. I am aware that this issue will not be new to most of you
however, I would be very interested to hear form those who are
successfully managing to negotiate their way through it without having to
give way to, or suffer the inherent restrictions of the all powerful,
dominant discourses or the political requirements (agendas) of
controlling institutions.<br>
<br>
DJ<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></html>
--=====================_12822174==_.ALT--