At the end of Deetz’s (2001) chapter he writes: “Good scholars have deep commitments. Mutiperspectivialism often leads to shallow readings and invites unexamined basic assumptions” (p. 37). In this section Deetz explains that we should not focus on becoming a so-called ‘jack of all trades’, but instead encourages us to focus and become a master of one when we develop our research program(s). However, with a growing institutional and discipline interest in multiple perspectives there seems to be some conflict.
1.) What are some approaches we can take in order to ‘master’ a particular research program, and at the same time be cognizant of the importance of multiperspectivialism? Or, in other words how do we focus on one research program, but at the same time be open/knowledgeable/experienced in others?
2.) In regard to this statement is there a perspective that Deetz has covered too shallowly, or skipped over completely?
No comments:
Post a Comment