emotions

Emotions | Dominic Marini | June 29th, 2000

Pinkie, you wrote:

2) "One of the purposes of analysis is to find explanations which 'fit' our understanding and therefore seem emotionally plausible." (Altrichter et al 1993, Teachers Investigate their Work, p.120).

I think what the author is getting at here is that explanations for phenomena which contradict what we've known about the world up to that point are emotionally disquieting.

An example that pops to mind is Einsteins's own experience. His special theory of Relativity was laughed at for years by people who had a lot of emotional investment in Newtonian physics. So, Einstein spent years developing the General Theory of relativity to shut them up.

Here's another. Smoker's who insist that THEY will not get cancer or that "all that cancer research is faked".

The key issue here is that knowledge is not evaluated dispassionately. Most people are not prepared to CORRECT themselves and to ADMIT that they 1) operate on a day to day basis with a set of truths which are CONTINGENT - even and especially seemingly self evident ones (Such as, the rules of sub lunar physics) or 2) that they are in practice doing what they themselves would not suggest someone else do if asked to give cool dispassionate advice (Should you inhale poison every day?

Dominic Marini

PS - Here's a quote some of y'all might like: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Albert Einstein, cited in Day RA 1995, Scientific English: A Guide for Scientists and Other Professionals, Oryx Press).

Emotions | Pinkie | June 29th, 2000

Dominic:

You mean Altrichter et al. are suggesting that we should analyze data in the same emotion-fuddled way that a smoker evaluates his risk of developing cancer? Crikey! I think I preferred it when I didn't understand!

Pinkie

Re: Emotions | Jonathan Clifton | June 29th, 2000

It is not really my field but a few years ago I read  "Descartes Error" by A. Damasio 1994 MacMillan. To quote the blurb,

"this book offers a scientific basis for ending the division between mind and body... rational decisions are not the product of logic alone but require the support of emotion and feeling".

I don't really know how accepted his ideas are but I get the feeling this is increasingly the orthodox position.

Emotion in the class room:

I think as teachers we must also be aware that teaching should also aim not only for the rational and cognitive but also for the emotional content. Indeed can we say that words are free of emotional content. This I suppose also comes back to the humanist teaching ideas that were mentioned a few days ago.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

Re: Emotions | Pinkie | June 30th, 2000

Thanks Jonathan. You wrote:

I think as teachers we must also be aware that teaching should also aim not only for the rational and cognitive but also for the emotional content.

Of course. I don't think anyone would dispute this. I am also quite happy to accept that in TESOL research emotions may be part of what we're studying; and that intuitive techniques like mind-mapping may be useful during the early (i.e. pre-analytical) stages of an enquiry; and that subjective judgments may in many studies form part of data collection. But you say...

"...rational decisions are not the product of logic alone but require the support of emotion and feeling". I don't really know how accepted his [Damasio's] ideas are but I get the feeling this is increasingly the orthodox position."

I certainly don't accept Damasio's assertion. It seems to me an evident contradiction in terms. Among whom is it the "orthodox" position? Among

TESOL researchers? On this course? To repeat a question from a previous message: DO PEOPLE REALLY CONSIDER THAT TESOL RESEARCHERS SHOULD ANALYSE THEIR DATA IN THE SAME EMOTION-FUDDLED WAY THAT A SMOKER EVALUATES HIS RISK OF DEVELOPING CANCER?

[Quite clearly, people's everyday decisions are often not the product of logic alone but reflect the influence of emotions; i.e. their decisions are at least partially irrational. But there is a quantum leap between accepting this and accepting that researchers should actively encourage the influence of their own emotions when analysing their data.]

I'm sorry to be such a doubter, but I really would like to get an answer to my SHOUTED question.

Pinkie

Re: Emotions | Jonathan Clifton | July 1st, 2000

Hi Pinkie,

Damasio:

Damasio is a neurologist, not a linguist, and so his book is perhaps less relevant to us directly. When I referred to his view as now being accepted as orthodox, I was speaking with a view to neuroscience and not TESOL. I stress that I THINK that his views are orthodox because, as I say, it is not really my field. I have an interest in neurolinguistics, but not enough to understand what is going on in the field of neuroscience. If you are interested try to pick up a copy of the book.

Emotionally fuddled response:

As I say my understanding of it is that Damasio would argue that for any response the emotional cannot be separated from the rational. He is looking at it in terms of neuro-scientific research. Where do I stand on this issue? Well, I tend to be with Damasio, but at the risk of repeating myself, this is not really my field.

Altricher:

I looked up your original quote and what he seems to be saying is that we try to fit our findings into explanations that are emotionally plausible but he then qualifies this a few lines later by saying, "however, plausible explanations cannot necessarily be trusted... another of the purposes of analysis is to check on explanations". So Altrichter is really saying we cannot trust what we feel to be true without checking it out.

Emotion in the classroom:

An excellent read in this field is "Affect in Language Learning," edited by Jane Arnold (1999 CUP).

Best wishes to all,

Jonathan

Re: Emotions | Francesca Michalski | July 1st, 2000

Pinkie,

Your comments about 'emotion fuddled' research analysis brought to mind a paper I recently read in 'Teachers Develop Teachers Research 2' (1995, available through IATEFL) by Marion Dadds entitled, "Finding your 'self ' in action research." In this paper she describes the action research of a teacher working with handicapped pupils and how she "tried to separate thought from feeling in reflecting upon her data, but found this difficult." Dadds goes on to say that "where such teacher emotion comes to cloud teacher judgment in research analysis, this clearly can be a problem. On the other hand, the knowledge that is generated by this emotional bonding may offer unique insights which could only enrich the research, when balanced by clear analysis and theorizing." I agree with Stenhouse in the view that with emic research, of the sort in which, we, as teachers, are involved, what we should be concerned with is " the development of a sensitive and self-critical subjective perspective and not the aspiration to unattainable objectivity."   After all, although we are inevitably more emotionally involved with our research (as our research subjects are also our students) we have the opportunity by this greater involvement for greater insight than would a more objective outsider.

Francesca

Brazil

Re: Emotions | Dominic Marini | July 3rd, 2000

Pinkie,

I don't know enough about Altrichter et al to say categorically that they are suggesting that we should analyze data in

... the same emotion-fuddled way that a smoker evaluates his risk of developing cancer.

Rather, I think they are pointing out that this is indeed what happens in everyday life. So be aware of it in your own decisions (say, about methodology?).

Dominic Marini

Re: Emotions | Pinkie | July 4th, 2000

Jonathan:

Just one point - to judge from the cover blurb at Amazon.com, Damasio is referring to the ways in which people make everyday decisions, and how brain damage can affect this. He is certainly NOT referring to the way in which neuroscientists do their research (I guess you know this, but just wanted to make it clear).

PS Dominic:

The important thing is to prevent emotions from affecting our analyses? As an unrepentant rationalist, I absolutely agree, but I don't think this is what Altrichter et al are saying: their position appears to be closer to that expressed (for example) by Francesca.

Best wishes,

Pinkie

Subjectivity in research | Pinkie | July 6th, 2000

I shan't bore y'all with any more of MY opinions on subjectivity in research, but I thought you might like to hear Julian Edge's views. I asked Julian what he thought about the Altrichter et al quote ("One of the purposes of analysis is to find explanations which 'fit' our understanding and therefore seem emotionally plausible."), and this is what he replied:

"I think that 'emotionally plausible' in the context of educational action research refers most importantly to the kind of research outcome which makes sense to a teacher in terms of action feasible in his or her context - an outcome that is not simply 'logical' in a decontextualised sense, but something that appears to make sense in terms of the teacher's educational culture, value system, and experience of the learners concerned, as well as being intellectually satisfactory. It invokes the idea of the teacher as being more than a technician applying rules. The Prabhu paper supplied with the FND goes into this at some length. And yes, I do agree with the position quoted."

[Julian also pointed out that he doesn't contribute directly to the list because he sees it as a discussion space for course participants only.]

Best wishes to all

Pinkie

 

Archive Categories