Sunday, 6 September 2015

A CONDUCTIVE RESEARCH PARADIGM?

Coincidence points a way

Two reports from Conductive World this last week:
Conductive World ended the first of these with its usual cri de coeur – it is high time for a new paradigm. As far as I know, Oliver Sacks was not aware of Conductive Education.

Towards a conductive research paradigm...

Here's mine:
  • dynamic, pedagogic investigation centring around doing something to teach people, and on the continuous, flexible, dynamic process of adapting what is done on the basis of what is being learned,
  • recognition of the length, breadth and richness of the long-term process of upbringing, (child-rearing) nevelés, vospitanie, Erziehung etc.), and the orthofunctional lifestyle, necessary to achieve fundamental and continuing change

  • making all this conductive, by bringing it together and uniting it the same kind of research (and researchers) as was spotted by Pultzer-winning journalist Michiko Kakutani, who wrote Oliver Sack's obituary in the New York Times –
    '...connections between science and art, physiology and psychology, the beauty and economy of the natural world and the magic of the human imagination'.
Together these three points sum up my paradigm for relevant Conductive Education research, and relevant Conductive Education researchers. I think that research and researchers working along this line could have served to elucidate even András Pető's movement therapy (had he let them!) and would throw considerable light on Conductive Education today. More than anything else has so far, anyway.

What's yours

2 comments:

  1. Ask the wrong questions and we'll keep on getting wrong answers.

    As an undergraduate, I knew an Australian Ph.D. student, Roger Leonard, whose thesis, eventually published, was a short guide to Von Clausewitz's 'Vom Kriege" (On War).
    On one occasion, I asked Roger what he made of some now long-forgotten issue or other.
    "I don't even know what the right question is," he replied. "When I can work that out, I might get to the right answer."

    On Wikipedia, it says this of Von Clausewitz: "He stressed the dialectical interaction of diverse factors, noting how unexpected developments unfolding under the "fog of war" (i.e., in the face of incomplete, dubious, and often completely erroneous information and high levels of fear, doubt, and excitement) call for rapid decisions by alert commanders .... that war could not be quantified or reduced to mapwork, geometry, and graphs."

    Much of what passes for research in CE seems obsessed with the equivalent of "map work, geometry and graphs".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Norman, I'll go with that, and not just for Conductive Education and its research. Von Clausewitz's sentiment is surely applicable to the whole, bean-counting shambles of 'special educational needs' and much more in this country (and possibly elsewhere).

    One should not perhaps take the theory of war analogy too far but there is also the example of Clauswitz's rival, Jomini. His three-fold framework, on the basis of strategy, ground tactics, and logistics, is perhaps analogous if you read his ground tactics as pedagogics.

    Ultimately war is far too important a matter to be left to the generals but before that point, it is also far, far too important to be left to the quartermasters, and even the foot-soldiers.

    ReplyDelete