I think
>it is not so much the methods which are a problem (methods are after all,
>just events with meaning overlaid, but more often the interpretations
>(constructions) based upon them and the absence of reflexivity in their
>application which is problematic for KE's (Kellian Essentialists) like
>myself.
>
>PCT is subsumming and therefore we may use and understand any method within
>this framework. PCT however requires of the researcher, recourse to, or
>acknowledgement of, the assumption that we work with active construers
>(see Viney 1987 & her discussion of the Mutual Orientation Model of
>Research). This has implications for both methodology and subsequent
>interpretations.
>
This is an important point. If Malcolm is saying, in methodology,
anything goes, but let's be reflexive noting that we are dealing with human
agents, I agree entirely. But I'd like to suggest a distinction, not new,
between the subjective and objective (third party) frames of reference. I
believe that both frames are important and valid. Yes, we must respect
persons as active, intentional agents; but there is also much to be gained
by viewing persons from an "objective" viewpoint. How else can we make
progress in the study of infants? In their perception, temperament,
emotionality, etc. We can't ask them, but we can observe them, and we can
gain much....
All the best,
Mike
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%