THE GLASS

JUAN DAVID MONSALVE

Profe_juanm@hotmail.com

Whether we say the glass is half empty or half full, neither glass nor contents
change; only our regard towards them.

However, we cannot say the same about any other idea, concept or subject in
academic reviews. At all times, when we interact in the world of ideas, ideal objects
as a philosopher knowing any degree of ontology would say, we would be in a
dangerous and thin area: subjectivity

Subjectivity is the place where reason has put the nest of doubt, instability and
unreliability. nevertheless, some philosophical schools and movements proclaim
themselves to be based on subjectivity, among them we may name the epitome of
such: solipsism. Additionally modern times and ideas do seem to become more
and more encompassed in subjectivity; look, for example, the internet were in the
1990´s few were the ones with the knowledge and resources to create, maintain
and manage any kind of web site, quite a contrast with today’s view of the net:
wikipedia, bloggers and many others have brought “democracy” to the media
power that internet can be.

The marked tendency of media users and society towards individuality and
subjectivism has, finally, come to the attention of the people. See, for example how
some sites, services and software has come to detect plagiarism, I prefer the easy
term: rip off, and how some educational institutes have come to raise their voices
on and about copied works from their students.

Furthermore, let’s take a look into the higher levels of education: colleges, thesis
and even professional works. You only need a quick tour in the mightiest tool of the
net: search engines, and you will find results about the subject. Yet research is,
partially, reading and taking the words of previous authors and incorporate them
into your speech (they are called theoretical grounds). And also some research
methods, such as qualitative research, which focus their attention to deeper
understandings of human behavior. At the same time narratology and storytelling
have come up to challenge that implies approaching the depths of human nature.
The critic tone of these lines may come up late in time, after the 1980´s and 1990´s
time were the apex of critics from a quantitative point of view came to be, which
after all seemed to had an effect since that time saw rising of new ways and
reflections regarding reliability, data collection and analysis.
Yet, some shadow obscures this still young line of thought, born from consumer
research in the industry of manufacture, like the diffuse identity and definition given
by its own peers like Taylor & Bogdan, Eisner or Rossman & Rallis. When
comparing their works we do not find a continuous line in the definitions given to
qualitative research. Also, from within qualitative research the solutions towards its
reliability from: Lincoln Y and Guba EG (1985) Naturalist Inquiry, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA. have given an approach to many methods of
authentication of such research.

Still this method, multidisciplinary in its components and researchers, could very
well be seen related to the 1990´s individuality and subjectivity and the question
could still be made about its results, their place in science (particularly non human
sciences) and the definition of research.

Copyright 2008 by JUAN DAVID MONSALVE