Re: WOMEN'S WAYS OF KNOWING/physics courses

["Dewey Dykstra, Jr." <dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu>]

Mark,

You say...
> 	The issue is not whether the research fit into any particulary
> paradigm, but rather are the sweeping generalizations made by the authors
> valid...

But how can you begin to discern what the _authors_ might have been meaning
by what they say when you are not interested in the research paradigm
within which they are working?  It strikes me as mighty easy to attach
intents and labels to their statements which the authors did not intend
when you do not know the paradigm within which they are making those
statements.

> ....or too put it a little more bluntly...are the results
> reproducable?

It strikes me that the mere fact that what they found was consistent with
the previous work of Perry and others (most of Perry's interviewees being
interviewed annually over four years) suggests that the WWK findings in
effect 'reproduce' the Perry work.  The WWK authors seem to be saying that
their findings illustrate in a very different sampling of people (from
Perry at least), ranging much wider than did Perry, himself, that positions
like those Perry used to describe his interview results could be seen in
this different population.

> 	My argument is that they studied too select a population to be
> able to make the sweeping generalizations that they did.

I was browsing through the book recently and I'm having a hard time finding
these "sweeping generalizations" made by the authors.  Frequently, the
authors used expressions like "these women", "these young women", "Some of
the women we interviewed...", "The majority of the women we
interviewed...",  "We know from earlier interviews with the women in this
chapter...".  The writing seems to be rather thoroughly documented and
referenced to the literature.

> 	I will let the psychologists and sociologists argue about the best
> way to carry out their research, meanwhile I reserve the right to ask for
> a high standard of proof when I view their results.

I can't argue with a desire for an appropriate rigor.  On the other hand,
the "methodological" differences are much deeper than deciding between
thermistors vs. thermocouples or questionaires vs. interviews.  So far, it
appears to me that the depth of the philosophical differences between the
two major paradigms (quantitative vs. naturalistic) is so great that to
fail to really understand each can easily rob one of the value and import
of the work of one or both of the 'camps.'

> Cheers and Happy New Year

Same back to ya.

Dewey

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr.                   Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics                    Dept:  (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/MCF421/418        Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University                  dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive                   Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570                       novice piper

"Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and
are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld,
1938.
"Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct
of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence."
--E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958.
"Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe."  --K. Amdahl in
There Are No Electrons, 1991.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++