Ahoy sailors!
My mind has been on a journey sailing across the world
(figuratively), but I’m back and anxious to plunder. ARRRGHHH!!!
First, I’d like to thank all of you three for your
commitment to this independent study. I’ve been in a sort of slump this
quarter, but I’m trying with much angst to get myself out of this ditch.
ANYWAYS, I had mixed feelings about this article by Señor Peshkin.
Alderson, I liked how you brought up Peshkin’s organization
of the piece. I agree, the article had a soft, gentle flow to it, structurally.
Especially, Peshkin’s use of the chart (Table 1) helped me make sense of all
the categories of analysis and subcategories of outcomes. What I didn’t find so
soft and pleasing was his move of “numerous quotes, the name dropping, and date
peppering.” I like your metaphors A.J.
so I’m pirating your ship! To me, it was like Peshkin sprinkled too much salt
rather than pepper. No, let me back up, it was more like having a super DUPER
salty dish and to wash it all down a dirty martini. I have nothing against
dirty martinis.
Peshkin’s soul purpose of the piece is stated in the first
page. He’s giving qualitative researchers an arsenal of arguments in favor of
OUR type of research and a “feast” of
possibilities and outcomes that WE can assume will result.
I understand I’m not the most well-read person and my
vocabulary struggles with recurrence and redundancy, so as I read this piece I
found myself pulling out my journal from last quarter and scribbling down words
I wasn’t familiar with. I’m sort of embarrassed to say, but words Peshkin used
like vexatious, chimera, abdicate,
required a dictionary for this guy. Thank God for Apple’s dictionary widget.
Peshkin’s vexatious vocabulary may have resulted in my
abdication of understanding his points and arguments.
IN YOUR FACE PESHKIN!
Did I even use those words correctly?
No comments:
Post a Comment