Don’t have much time at the moment to write fuller posts but here is a small piece of writing by Simon Jones sent to me by C-DaRE PhD student Teoma Naccarato:

I would argue that the epistemological difficulties inherent in the phrasing of a judgment of practice-as-research are analogous to those encountered by physicists in their attempts to measure the quantum world using the experimental machinery developed to demonstrate Classical or Newtonian mechanics. The aporia between these realities – the everyday and the quantum – challenged the belief that systems could be finally known through measurement.

– Simon Jones (p.30), in Practice-as-Research in Performance and Screen (2009). Ludivine Allegue, Simon Jones, Baz Kershaw, and Angela Piccini, eds. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Print and DVD


4 Replies to “judgement”

  1. I am constantly confused that the positivist has to creep into any debate on research to validate it and make it worthy of something, its like we try on the illusion that we didn’t create the ‘measurement’ by which we ‘measure’…..


  2. Morning digibody. I’m not sure Simon Jones’ statement (which is nicked out of context) is about using positivist *issues* to validate what we are doing in practice-as-research. I understand him to be saying that, “well, things change, and the things we did in the past aren’t ideal to consider what we do now”. But I also appreciate (and understand) your sensitivity about positivist analogies for qualitative research.

    Thanks also for link to Dani Abulhawa’s writing. I plan to cover it in a later blog post.


  3. Ok – so its phrasing here that is my issue…Maybe its not solely about the positivist – I get a sense of wording here also that troubles – disrupts – closes – inhibits – alienates – defines – and perhaps wonder if it is a comparable analogy for a form of research that wanted to yes in some sense disrupt the status quo but opens – facilitates – combines – unites – obscures – re-represents – trifles with in rigorous triflings – and maybe the author insists that the ‘quantum’ aspect of mechanics does this enough to the mechanical…. but actually uses lingo that allows it to remain a ballpark figure. I guess it has ‘phrasing’ at its heart and that’s what I was agitating in my comment and circulating of thinking. If we look at the language of the quantum – aside from the odd ‘cat’ – it is largely a numeric system that conforms to a set of values……hmmmm ….. still thinking….feel free to challenge!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s