<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://elearningblogs.education.ed.ac.uk/oldelgg/elgg/christines/weblog/rss/philosophy/rssstyles.xsl"?>

<rss version='2.0'   xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
    <channel xml:base='http://elearningblogs.education.ed.ac.uk/oldelgg/elgg/christines/weblog/'>
        <title><![CDATA[Christine Sinclair : Weblog items tagged with philosophy]]></title>
        <description><![CDATA[The weblog for Christine Sinclair, hosted on Holyrood Park.]]></description>
        <link>http://elearningblogs.education.ed.ac.uk/oldelgg/elgg/christines/weblog/</link>        
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Being philosophical]]></title>
            <link>http://elearningblogs.education.ed.ac.uk/oldelgg/elgg/christines/weblog/1890.html</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="true">http://elearningblogs.education.ed.ac.uk/oldelgg/elgg/christines/weblog/1890.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:39:38 GMT</pubDate>
		<dc:subject><![CDATA[research stance]]></dc:subject>
		<dc:subject><![CDATA[philosophy]]></dc:subject>
            <description><![CDATA[<p>The interesting discomforts associated with exploring unfamiliar or previously rejected techniques for research are proving enlightening about my attitude to research altogether.&nbsp; It's not that I'm anti research - though I am horrified by the distortions&nbsp; to HE caused by the research assessment exercise - it's just that I only feel drawn to certain approaches to it myself.&nbsp; I haven't properly thought this through before.&nbsp; </p><p>Education has been my third choice of academic discipline - I changed from English Lit to Philosophy early as an undergraduate.&nbsp; Research in those academic areas would probably not typically involve interviews, questionnaires, statistics or anything like that.&nbsp; (None of these would have to be ruled out, though.) If I had progressed in either, &quot;research&quot; (perhaps scholarship?) would have involved working with texts and ideas, not people - though people could have been important as an object of study. </p><p>As an academic, the writing I have done has tended to be the low status &quot;how to&quot; stuff aimed at helping students.&nbsp; I have several conference papers that I aim to redo to publish in academic journals, and I might also do this with some essays I've written for this course.&nbsp; But my aim is to communicate ideas and possibilities rather than present facts that I have discovered. </p><p>I'm probably more interested in reinterpreting facts presented by others. Indeed, this would be appropriate for the interest I have in the changes that happen when we move activities online - I believe that they are no longer the same activities and our actions (including language use) are no longer the same as they are f2f.&nbsp; This could have huge implications for education.</p><p>I think I'm feeling my way here to a philosophical stance rather than a social science one, if such a distinction is appropriate.&nbsp; I've been reintroduced to philosophical ideas several times during the course and have enjoyed exploring them.&nbsp; And of course Philosophy is also no longer the same online as f2f (nor the same as it was in the 70s!)</p><p>This discovery feels quite important, though when I read it over it doesn't seem to be saying much. </p>]]></description>
        </item>
                
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Tangles and threads]]></title>
            <link>http://elearningblogs.education.ed.ac.uk/oldelgg/elgg/christines/weblog/1585.html</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="true">http://elearningblogs.education.ed.ac.uk/oldelgg/elgg/christines/weblog/1585.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:36:44 GMT</pubDate>
		<dc:subject><![CDATA[philosophy]]></dc:subject>
		<dc:subject><![CDATA[space]]></dc:subject>
		<dc:subject><![CDATA[blog]]></dc:subject>
            <description><![CDATA[<p>There's a lot going on on the discussion board - and it's really good philosophical inquiry.&nbsp; I last opened it yesterday late afternoon but first thing this morning there were 36 entries to look at.&nbsp; And I'm going to be away until Sunday evening with no internet connection; at this stage of the course this could be a problem.&nbsp; I'm taking the textbook with me so I can at least keep in touch with the ideas.&nbsp; But after what I've just been looking at, I now want to take <em>Notes from the Underground</em> too - and <em>Being and Nothingness</em> if I have it, but I don't think I have.&nbsp; But I was trying to travel light!</p><p>The debate about truth seemed slow to get going at first and now there is no stopping it.&nbsp; I've contributed a few things and have nearly made several other observations but have stopped myself (I'm always interested when that happens).&nbsp; In one case, i wanted to say something about Plato's <em>Symposium</em> (during our debate on Love) - but I felt it might be a thread killer.&nbsp; In another, I wanted to add something but hadn't worked it through or had got into an internal contradiction. (I should note when this happens though.)<br /> </p><p>I haven't much time this morning - I should be marking, I'm packing to go to Aberdeen and I have to go for my train to go to work.&nbsp; I'm writing hastily and all the time thinking about what this blog should &quot;feel&quot; like.&nbsp; It's not really just a matter of transferring from Blogger - that's a different type of space.&nbsp; It almost feels as though in it's in a different place (physical) in the web - which does suggest an intersubjective construction of the online world. </p><p>This sounds as though I'm going to want to keep two blogs going.&nbsp; (But it'll be next week before I can do this.) </p>]]></description>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>