We have had some great
conversations going on in Link-in. One strand explored positivism and
non-positivism. But I found myself in an odd position. The idea of the
conversations is that we are exchanging ideas with no value placed on who says
it, just what is said. The whole point of the course is that we are all experts
at least in our own lives. So when we talked about positivism and I felt we
were limiting ourselves by the understanding of how large the idea is; I did
not feel I could say any more in the conversation because I did not want to
devalue what was being discussed or ‘pull rank’. But I also feel a
responsibility to you as someone who advises on the course that you do not
leave with ideas that I do not think are grounded in how most people understand
a theory. So I decided my blog was the best place to talk about it.
Positivism is more than just
a method, it is a methodology for understanding the world. It is understanding
the world as pre-existing. That there is a truth that we are able to find
regardless of what we do: it is there to be found. It is seeing objects are
existing in their own right and that your see or note seeing of them, your
experiences have no impact on what they are. They are fundamentally real. It
sees us as having one reality of which we can be aware of or not but that does
not change its existence. This is about the fundamental substance of the world,
what it is made of and how it is in relation to us.
Non-positivism is also more
than a method, it is a methodology for understanding the world. Here
interaction has an impact on the substance of ‘things’. There can be more than
one ‘truth’. In fact ‘truth’ does not represent the same thing, have the same
meaning as it does in the above. Reality is not fixed. So theses two are about
an ontological understanding of what reality is. They are more than about which
research method to use. They are important in research not just to indicate
appropriate tools but because as researchers we need to have a framework to
describe the world we think we are in.
I often use dance metaphors
or analogies because I think dance needs to have a voice beyond the studio
mirrors but these things are not so often discussed in the context of dance. So
the metaphors we use must be seen as that, window on to large ideas that are
not limited by a particular subject. Also the dance examples are not comments
on dance methodology – what dance is or should be etc… they are using the situation of dance to look at ideas. There
are so many beautiful texts, and other work about this I really encourage you
to take the ideas and explore rather than decide yet exactly what they mean in
the detail of your own day-to-day teaching activity. I really hope my ambition
to move away from the usual language to discuss these, into a language that
references dance does not confuse or over simplify the beauty of these ideas.
I wonder if I come across ??
Adesola
Hi Adesola. Thanks for this. I totally understand what you are saying and the scope of the concepts of positivism and non-positivism. It was good to see your broader description of them.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated in my posts, it was more the tiny possibility that there could be only one way to teach something that got me thinking, rather than the concepts as a larger entity, but I did realise that you were creating an accessible example that we could all relate to.. using our common ground of dance.
I guess as we study we are having to think a lot about our teaching and research methods, so it is useful to see positivism and non-positivism in contexts that are in the forefront of our minds, but it is also important not to have too small an idea about such concepts.
Sitting here writing this, I almost feel that I could say that choosing one concept over another is almost akin to choosing a religion to follow (or to not to follow one at all)... it feels spiritual and vast.
So, for me, yes you come across. Exploring small areas such as our teaching using these concepts has been stimulating, but being mindful of the bigger picture is of course important and necessary.
Hopefully I come across too?
Have a good evening.
Janet
I think the religion analogy is a good one. That's what it feels like to me too, and people have the same force of conviction about which is 'right' as can crop-up in religious doctrine too!
DeleteI think that is the problem, fundamentally, as there is always that nagging feeling that it is religion that seems to be at the heart of war! I realise of course that positivism and non-positivism do not in themselves serve as religions, but I can totally understand how you can relate the two, and the headstrong convictions that people can have about their personal choices. I say Live and Let Live.... and I am enjoying learning more about these concepts.. hopefully soon I will have something to offer with regard to my personal stance within all that we are learning about, but I will try not to force my convictions too strongly on others when I do....it would make me the didactic teacher I always say I do not want to be!
DeleteHi Adesola! Thank you for the clarifications. However, I am still a little confused. While, I think I understand that positivism and non-positivism are ontological and epistemological beliefs, I was under the impression from the literature that we had to apply them to our Dance practice and Dance Research methods.....I thought it was about approach to technique and methodologies.... Am I way off beam?
ReplyDeleteAllydos
Yes, you are encouraged to apply them to your dance practice as a way to understand what they mean in action as it were. You are being encourage to not just understand a theory but look at what it implies in day-to-day activity. That's to understand what the ideas mean by putting them into your context. You might find that they are so removed from you that they do not fit into a context you experience but you can see how they create a different set of activities.
DeleteThanks for the clarification about positivism and non-positivism and seeing how it is applied to our lives more broadly be it in dance practice or otherwise. For me and my humble understanding and learning of it all is what I call speaking to my reality and my truth and how I engage with both concepts. This I perceive through a dance lens which is why I am on this course but more broadly the dance lens has acted a prism from where I can see and engage with life. As I have been reflecting on both positivism and non-positivism I look forward to coming across the vast array of texts and writings or musings out there on this subject which I embrace wholeheartedly. Looking at where I see and position myself through life (and dance practice) I would like to use as a brief example the work of Katherine Dunham. I know that for our first task we are asked to look at modern dance pioneers and view through their lens their work and position but I wanted to contribute to my explorations which at the moment is still at the exploratory stage and quite brief and am at the point of delving into more thoroughly – but for now here goes. As a person from a Caribbean background and perspective I wanted to explore something which I have a personal and direct resonance with given that Katherine’s work over the past 60-70 years or so touches on a culture that I am most familiar and life system that has served as a launch pad for my own developing ontology of what my reality is. Katherine Dunham for many years prepared a system of exercises and methodology that looked at her own experiences in life and she devoted much of her life to creating and developing something that could at the time assist with in the shaping of peoples’ lives as well as developing the physical body through movement – in this case the Dunham Technique. She translated the fruits of learning into a creative expression with dance being the medium of course but what intrigued me was the development of her own theories that wanted to satisfy her need to understand the world around her namely other cultures and their realities. She created three main theories(Form and function; Intercultural communication and Socialization through the arts) out of which she developed her methodology. I won’t expand on the movement aspect of it but what gripped me was her search for truth in her own life characterized by a need to know something and acquiring knowledge. Her research methods I imagine are well documented but for the purposes of this blog I wanted to voice my understanding of the subject of positivism and non-positivism and where I fit within it. She was a social scientist, writer, academic, anthropologist, dance, teacher, and choreographer – she got my vote and has opened up my own search for my truth – whatever that may be. Searching for truth for me means looking at and exploring different sides of the same coin!
Delete