Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6851RE: [cp] CHecking stories

Expand Messages
  • Shawn Callahan
    Sep 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Phew! Thanks for that Rosanna. It's hard to tell how to take things when you
      join a new community.

      Cheers, Shawn


      From: Rosanna Tarsiero [mailto:rosanna@...]
      Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2006 12:36 PM
      To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [cp] CHecking stories


      You wrote:

      "BTW I thought the snake oil reference was a bit below the belt."

      Again, I mustn't have been clear. That wasn't about *you*, Shawn, nor about
      all or most people that do qualitative stuff or that prefer a subjective
      approach. I didn't even say that such approach doesn't work simply because I
      do think objectivity exists and therefore what worked for one can work for
      another! *grin*

      Besides, it's not like me. If I want to engage in ad hominem attacks, I'm
      pretty quick and unafraid to do so.

      What I DID say, is that from the consumer perspective (ie the person that
      doesn't know anything about the expertise s/he is buying) hearing claims
      about subjectivity may *sound* like snake oil and that may be a reason for
      CoPs aren't more widely adopted. For example, there are people that are
      deterred from alternative medicine because it isn't tested and it feels, to
      THEM, like snake oil because it's unproven/anecdotal. And just to be clear
      (to you) on my position: I use both alternative and traditional medicine,
      the way I tend to use both qualitative and quantitative methods with CoPs.
      YET I do think that alternative methods would gain ***credibility*** if they
      would get tested. So would methods for and about CoPs.

      When I speak about my practice to people that know nothing about CoPs, they
      ask for explanations (what they are, how it works, why it works like that,
      what if they adopt it, etc) and they would like to have some "meat",
      something objective, at least in part, in order to make their *rational*
      choices. They have a problem or they want to improve something, and they are
      in search of a solution. Thus I have to give them a clear definition of what
      the solution might be, how it might work, why, and what could happen to
      their organization if it gets adopted if I want to get the job. In order to
      do so, I *need* to use comparisons, which can't be used if we accept the
      lack of *any* objectivity of experience and THIS is part of the reason for I
      prefer action learning over mere subjectivism: it at least provides for a
      framework to compare experiences by.

      Of course the fear of the potential client about getting snake oil doesn't
      mean that such fears (ie to get snake oil instead of a solution to a
      problem) are real or even have a legitimate basis. YET they might still
      deter people from adopting CoPs.

      I hope you see my point by now, ie: even qualitative methods need be
      logically explained and motivated in order to be sold. The humanist
      psychology is undergoing a pretty similar debate right now.

      Rosanna Tarsiero

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 34 messages in this topic