As I was reading the Alcoff (1992) article, Putnam's articulation of both the functionalist and interpretive approaches became two very dichotomous lenses to read from. I do believe that both worldviews would respond to her tenants regarding the problematic nature of speaking for others in vastly different ways. According to Alcoff "the study of and advocacy for the oppressed must come to be done principally by the oppressed themselves" (p. 7). She questions who has legitimate authority to not only speak, but establish criteria for validity. So my questions are:
1.) Should we even be concerned with achieving validity? How does an alignment with the functionalist or interpretive approach influence this opinion?
2.) Is involving your participants and therefore potential "others " in the research conversation (i.e. recruitment, data collection, and analysis) a justifiable reason to speak for the oppressed?
No comments:
Post a Comment