Interactive research in a constructionist perspective Dian Marie Hosking geocities.com/dian_marie_hosking

science science = one way of knowing narratives in/of science what is “normal” (science) or ‘orthodox’, abnormal or heretical… changes narratives in/of science Naïve realism Constructivism Social Constructionism … eg eastern/western, science & magic, secular & spiritual… Physics: Copernicus(Heliocentric); what about flat earthers...! Einstein – Newton… ‘Normal’ science - Kuhn - revolutions

Naive realism reality & relations sense data language singular, universal, ‘object out there’ & available to be known by separate subject sense data provide knowledge of the world (sense taking) language re-presents this knowledge (the world) research interest knowing ‘the world as it really is’ 1 language = a tool for talking about relations between P & Context 2 Common western tfg of science: mind & reality each have a separate existence The scientist is the active, knowing Subject in a world of knowable Objects… Breaking with earlier ‘participative” world view (eg as in alchemy)… Descartes legacy mind-body dualism

constructivism sense data are the basis for reality ‘perception’ …constructive sense making knower combines what it is ‘in the head’ with what is ‘in the world’ reality singular, universal, ‘object out there’ & available to be known by separate subject language: re-presents sense-making research interest: knowing ‘the world as it really is’ Wider context: science & scientific rationalism - central interest: what is real, is true - as transcendental facts about ‘the world’. Mainstream sc interpretation stayed within the confines of its initial presuppositions/tfg’s & these set limits on possible interpretations e.g., tfg’s about whats real define whats ‘magic’ e.g., the senses can be ‘fooled’ Whose interest? – scientific interest… other interests?

Continuing taken-for-granteds reality singular language representative function separate ontologies individual agent, ‘internal’ & ‘external’ worlds interest: one voice (Science) defines… other interests?

relational constructionism reality: multiple (re)constructed in inter-action co-constructed neither subjective nor objective but relational ontology language: is action, is performative a local-cultural practice or ‘form of life’ scientific interests: what & how of reality construction processes Assume multiple co-existing realities (& not 1) e.g.: rabbit/duck ‘what is this?… truth is no longer ‘the name of the game’ & questions change Shift from language as representation to actions THEN our world is no longer thought of as a world of separate things but of relationships we co-author (participative world view) No longer reproducing Plato’s dualistic distinction between ontology & epistemology…but a dialectic

research as a reality construction process the Received View of Science (RVS) constructs separate ontologies - relations between knower & known i.e., Subject-Object relations this is just one way of constructing relations self & other & relationship can be viewed as ongoing (re)constructions in S-O relations or..? What/content focus being realism received view of science (RVS) & so scientist apart from Other in subject-object (S-O) relation

Focusing on construction processes de- centers persons & relations between persons centers processes of relating texts: words, pictures, actions, symbols... to other words, pictures, actions, symbols... constructions/relational realities are: multiple & partial/local relating = person & world making ‘becoming realism’ cave paintings magritte’s pipe

Interactive inquiry All inquiry is inter-action a relational constructionist thought style offers ways of self & world making through inter-actions that: are open to multiple local realities are provocative (of possibilities) create ‘power to’ go on in different but equal relations are reflexive eg mono-cultural dominance? …eg what kinds of stories do we tell about leadership? Could there be many narratives of leadership? How would we generate them? Inquiry: in the Story of Science - ‘finds out’ about reality ‘out there’… but now we see it as constructing a relatively closed narrative about ‘what really is the case’ – How to make inquiry open, reflexive, & useful (in relation to multiple realities of what is & should be) Open to multiple realities,(link to power) provocative of change (not as a replacement of existing approaches but as another legitimate possibility)

Reflexivity as an epistemological issue in RVS: to minimise bias in knowledge claims revision: making bias visible post modern: S cannot speak for O telling ourselves a story about ourselves (Chia) opening up to multiple constructions & multiple self-other relations that are in ongoing re-construction Reflexivity as an epistemological issue Individual act

Reflexivity & relational constructionism an aspect of ‘becoming’, of ontology & so: a feature of the processes of relating part of ongoing research process concerns how are we ‘going on’ together the local realities are we constructing ‘…a case for the end of knowing & the rediscovery of development’ (Newman & Holtzman) Becoming realism (emergent, processual, implicate)

Inquiry as development methodology as ‘tool & result’ how we do things – the ‘tool’, the becoming process - matters because we are (re)producing particular forms of life no theory of truth no theory of knowledge distinct from opinion Inquiry is now radically reconstituted Ie not about building knowledge about a pre-existing reality

Inquiry as inter-action inquiry may be constructed as ‘development’ constructing ‘solidarities’ (Rorty) & not objectivity local rationalities as praxis, norms, justifications…, having ‘only an ethical base, not an epistemological or metaphysical one’ (Rorty, p24) Cf Bauman ‘ being with the other rather than for the other

Constructing ‘power to’ open and appreciative of multiplicity performative not ‘just talk’ focuses on how we participate including multiloging who gets to participate and how? how is multiplicity appreciated? Not ‘power over’ i.e., appreciative & not right/wrong - Multiplicity & not dominance (cf eg Sheila) All action is viewed as metaphorical Talk- cf dialogical approaches (eg Chris & Murray) How? eg narrative & re-storying, dialogical approaches (eg John Goedee, interlogics)