Meta-thoughts on CP's project on evaluation

From Critical Practice Chelsea
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Does CP want to realise a publication? If so, it would be worth thinking about this well in advance. This way, we can avoid the mad scramble we experienced last time, as well as the disproportinate amount of labour that fell to Neil.
  • Like 'publicness' or 'being public' - evaluation is a broad theme. It's unlikely there will be agreement about what it means. We may well conclude that like 'publicness,' 'evaluation' is a 'black hole' that can mean many things. Any particular sense of this would need to be tailored to its context, with the theory, needs, purpose, methodology, etc. issuing from this. This tracks with CP's responsive approach to practice more generally. How to think about this? Site specific? Context responsive? Reflexive research? All of the above?
  • Assuming that this research will be heterogeneous, and that we'll be platforming/representing diverse points of view and/or aspects, etc, how can we also think about it as 'research,' with this involving understanding that can be shared. So...understanding held in common and shared (disseminated/placed in the public domain)? Star and Griesemer talk about the importance of 'ensuring reliability of across domains and gathering information which retains its integrity across time, space and local contingencies'. When it comes to EVALUATION can think about this as a tension between CP commitment to preserving divergent viewpoints (clustering) and the need to generalize findings in the spirit of generating research outputs/outcomes. So there's this tension between heterogeneity and cooperation.
  • Is this project about developing a kind of value system?

Return to Research on Value * Post-doc * Main Page