Jones--Through the other’s eyes

1. As far as I understand it, Mumby contends that organizational communication scholars should not be having contentious arguments over which epistemological perspectives are 'better.' Instead, scholars should attend to problematics that arise across the research curriculum—representation, understanding, suspicion, vulnerability. I find this approach interesting because the goal is not proving research legitimacy (which is important), but instead on the problematic itself. Mumby identifies these four problematics from an analysis of research that has been 'produced' in the field.
   

   Do you think that Cheney and Miller would agree with these as the problematics? Would they add or remove any areas? Where do you think Cheney and Miller would position the type(s) of research agendas they articulate?
   

2. Cheney provided the reader with 17 definitions of interpretative (p. 22-24). Many of them sounded a lot like the other perspectives in this class. For example, #10 sounds like the dialogic perspective or with #14, I would ask why that analysis of power and language is not something under the critical perspective. I also think that many critical scholars would take issue with #7 that portrays critical research as one that tries "to privilege the position of the researcher" (p. 22).
   

   Would you agree that a critical scholar would bristle at being described as privileging their position? OR do you think that this is a fair description?