One woman's story : how ways of knowing affect our lives
Date
1992
Authors
Artz, Sibylle
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
This thesis explores how we undergo shifts and changes in how we understand and know ourselves and our lifeworlds by telling one woman's story. The story emerges from conversations held between the researcher and Yvonne, a student from the Bridges Project, a pre-researcher's teaching practice.
The researcher draws on Carol Gilligan's (1982) work on moral development and Mary Belenky's (1986) work on the development of self, voice and mind to trace the evolution of Yvonne's changes in understanding. Questions of morality--what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad--were major guiding questions in Yvonne's life. Gilligan's distinctions between a morality of justice which concerns itself with right action based in adherence to rules and principles, and a morality of response and care which concerns itself with right action based in an ability to respond to others in their own terms and preserve relationships, helped inform an understanding of how Yvonne construed her choices. Woven into these questions about right and wrong action, and central to their unravelling were the changes Yvonne underwent in her understanding of what knowledge and knowing is.
As Yvonne told her story, the researcher heard her talk in the different voices of knowing that Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule (1986) describe, but the shifts in voice and ways of knowing were not only epistemological shifts, they were also ontological shifts. It was not only that Yvonne "knew" things in a certain way, it was also that she "was" a certain way. In other words, it was not only a question of knowing, but also a question of being. When Yvonne spoke in a way that, according to Belenky et al., silent knowers speak, she sounded more silenced than simply silent. Silence, rather than a static position, appeared to be a choice made about a way of being in the world when other options seemed to be fraught with danger or out of reach. When she returned to school, rather than operating as a received knower, she acted as a receiver of knowledge. When she listened to her own inner voice and let her personal evaluation of a given situation guide her choices, she was not only a subjective knower, she knew subjectively. When she was able to integrate different points of view and adopt multiple perspectives, she was not simply a connected procedural knower, she engaged in knowing procedurally and in connection with others. When she reflected back on her experience and found ways to understand herself and the conditions of her life which gave rise to her self-constructs, she had not moved to a static position labelled II constructed knower, 11 she was constructing knowledge. At each point, she was not merely exhibiting an epistemological mindset, she was doing her knowing and being a knower in certain ways.
Explicit use of the a priori constructs provided by Gilligan and Belenky was made to create a developnental outline of how Yvonne underwent change. This use of pre-ordained frameworks facilitated an articulation of the steps taken in coming to terms with self-understanding, but it also raised questions for the researcher about ways of proceeding in the quest for understanding. As a result of asking these questions, the researcher also underwent a shift in understanding. Therefore, a second story emerged out of the first story. That second story is the documentation of the researcher's own shifts with regard to how to approach pedagogical research and practice. While the two stories are different--one is a life story and the other confines itself to dealing with inquiry--both stories share the theme of shifts in understanding.
In the end, the researcher's questions with regard to her research and practice created a new starting place for further inquiry: How can one find ways to create meaning and understanding without limiting oneself to creating a fit between a priori constructs and experience? How does one create space for meanings to arise so that the relationship between thought and action can be generated from experience, rather than imposed by external frameworks? What is the relationship between understanding and the constructs that are made to create it? How do we create our Selves?
Description
Keywords
UN SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions