The students explore how "we know what we know" through the lens of the natural and human sciences, arts and languages. They examine the role that reason, perception, emotion and ethics play in the creation and application of knowledge.
The course acknowledges that knowledge creation is a collective process. The students are encouraged to discuss and debate the topic from a myriad of perspectives. But not so the essay. It's an individual work judged on a personal performance.
But what if the essay writing component could have a collaborative element that "walks the talk"? Each student would choose a topic. Then they would work as a team to help scope out each other's essays, in much the same way a teacher might provide assistance. They would collectively explore the possibilities. Develop a framework. Construct an argument. Reach a tentative conclusion. And get a head start. Not only for their essay, but for life in the real world, where leaders in business and government need to be able to create new knowledge together.
Each student would then fly solo. They would do the hard part themselves; the literature review, write up the arguments, reach their own conclusions, and dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. It would be all their own work.
This is an approach I like to adopt in my own research but prefer to go even further. I choose to write papers for conferences and academic journals with colleagues because when we do, like Vygotsky's children in collective play, we "perform as if we were a head taller."
So here is a workshop method to implement this idea. It is as old as Socrates. You begin with the thesis (one side of the argument), develop an antithesis (the other sides of the argument) and resolve them into a synthesis (an overarching new and better solution) which hopefully resolves the conflict.
You can also use the method to analyze any issue in the broader world of business, politics, religion and community.
1. Who are the main protagonists in this argument? Names, titles, organisations.....
2. What are the main arguments put forward by the protagonists?
3. What interests do each of the protagononists represent, what biases may they bring to the discussion, and what are they trying to achieve by participating in the debate/discussion?
4. For each of the arguments that each of the protagonists, put forward what kinds of knowledge (reason, intuition, gossip, deductive reasoning, abductive reasoning) and what support is there for that knowledge (documents, independent research, paid research, hearsay).
5. On what issues do the protagonists agree, and for which there is no dispute?
6. On what issues to the protagonists disagree, and why is there a dispute?
7. Considering all of the sources, their reliability, and the biases/interests of the protagonists, what would you conclude (and why), if your were a disinterested observer?
8. How can we be sure this is a real problem? Is it merely an isolated localisated disagreement or an issue with much broader consequences? Give your reasons.
9. What biases do you bring to the issue that you need to make public and discount?
10. What possibilities are there for the two different positions to be reconciled by abductive reasoning (using a new metaphor) that allows you to create an overarching solution which is consistent with all of the information/data/knowledge upon which the protagonists rely?
11. Why might the protagonists reject the “third way” that you have developed?
12. How can you improve/enhance the proposed solution so that it better meets the needs and interests of all the parties?
13. What might be the benefits/advantages of the protagonists embracing the “third way” that you have develeped which is more consistent with the sources.
14. What are the consequences of the status quo/doing nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment