"Reflexivity" is one of those terms... Nice and neat in set theory, a relation R is reflexive in set A iff for all a in A aRa is true. Then there's the ethnomethodology version, which means talk and situation dynamically co-constitute each other. Then there's the focused ethno version I learned, namely that the ethnographer is part of the data. Then there's the critical theory version, namely putting a project in broader historical context to evaluate interests it serves with a critical evaluation vis a vis a model of the good society.
Almost as bad as trying to define "complexity" (: Mike On Apr 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Matthew Francisco wrote: > Dr. Daniels, > > I want to make sure I understand you. See below... > > On 4/13/07, Marcus G. Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >>> reflexivity is also a part of cybernetics (of second order), and >>> cybernetists think that complexity theory is a part of >>> cybernetics too... >>> >> For the social scientist, the approach raises two problems: >> >> 1) Too much reflection means too much attention to models of the >> world. >> To ask the right questions means having unbiased data on how >> people in >> some context of interest actually behave. > > I take it that when you say context of interest you are inferring that > this is a model of the world. I understand you as meaning that > context is unstable, always shifting, as a natural outcome of > reflection. The act of shifting contexts and perspectives and between > models of the world is reflexivity. That's a good way to think of it! > > Asking the right questions means settling on a few world models at the > most but one, a context of interest, is preferred. I'm, however, > unclear on the relationship of unbiased data to the framework you are > proposing. Does biased data arise from gathering data in one model of > the world, moving to another, gathering more data, moving to another > model of the world and so on? I believe that there is some other > criteria that you have for determining if data is biased or unbiased > that might not be related to one or many world models and the shifting > between them, but I'm unsure. I acknowledge that I may be asking the > wrong questions here. Please advise! > > >> >> 2) It's typically not possible to sufficiently influence or observe >> people to understand cause and effect across individuals or groups. >> The insights gained from reflexive participation will just be the >> kind >> of models we get living life (but with fancied-up language to >> sound more >> important than they are). Seems to me this kind of modeling is >> more the >> domain of the intelligence agencies than universities. >> > > I take it that when you say that there is an impossibility to > influence or observe then you are speaking from a particular model of > the world. I cannot understand what you mean by sufficiency until I > better understand where you are coming from. I think that it is most > appropriate here for me to take responsibility for my ignorance on > this because I don't think that I adequately explained the model of > the world that I'm living in when I speak of reflexivity much less > interpret how you think about it based on what I said or what you > already know. I really would like to share it with you if I can, but > I also don't want to bore FRIAM (I'm absolutely capable of that!). > > I think that if reflexive participation, as you put it, by an analyst > could get at the world you experience living your life then it would > be a highly successful approach. That's a pretty radical claim you're > making! I'd say that such analysis would give some insight into > another person's world but definitely not a replication of the same > model. > > I recently watched a whole slew of spy movies (The Conversation, > Syriana, The Good Shepard…) and I think that you're absolutely right > that the model of reflexivity your proposing, shifting between models > of the world, fits with the narratives portrayed in these films. You > defiantly gave me an entirely new way to think about reflexive > sociology! Does such an approach not belong in the University?!? I'm > intrigued. Thanks for this response, you really got me thinking! > > Have a good night > > Matt > > >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
