Archive for March, 2009

methodological cul-de-sac

Posted on March 23, 2009. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: |

Another reason for not writing for a while was probably trying to make sense of last supervision meeting where – having been asked to justify the use of non-traditional research methods, namely the hermeneutic approach, and having produced 8k words explaining decision – it was felt that a couple of pages would do the job much better. GGRRHH.

I do see though that I have been over-defensive and that the explanation acquired a sort of pleading tone when I need to be asserting my choices more forecefully. But still – I do need to persaude examiners that these choices are reasonable and well founded.

Won’t write this section again until the final stages I think, when I hope it will all fall into place.

And I do think my deep, difficult struggle with hermeneutics will be helpful somewhere along the line, even if that isn’t clear just now. I expect this kind of setback/confusion/deadend is part of the normal PhD process. Time to pick up the pieces again and start preparing the paper to take to the Jungian Studies conference in Cardiff this July. This audience will know much much more about Jung than I do – actually I look forward to that, could be really helpful.

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Return to the coal face

Posted on March 23, 2009. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: |

Been busy last few weeks sorting content for a special edition of Ethical Space, featuring contributions from the Radical PR gathering I wrote about last year (Conferenced Out pt 1). Been an interesting experience – the papers promised in November evaporated over Christmas and then new papers emerged in february. It should be a lively edition and we’re hoping to publish in time to take it to the ICA conference in Chicago (where I’ll be presenting a paper on the themes of the PhD – more to follow).

The papers don’t have a common theme but do have a shared value of openness and questioning hidden assumptions, which I guess makes them radical. Such a shame the grouping has not solidified – largely over problems with the name ‘Radical’ and a problem with the website. Still, the edition should help – be interesting to see what the response if any is from mainstream PR scholars.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...