Struggling with Deleuze

I’ve had an interesting morning during which I’ve finally acknowledged that I need an underlying philosophical basis for my thesis, one which will solve all my problems, relegate the methodologists to their proper place in chapter 2/3, and which will help to strengthen my premise.

I’m thinking Deleuze, although my good friend Ian suggests that as we live in a post-modern, post-structural society, that it’s okay to cherry pick from a number of the philosophies that most resonate with you. If one wants to stick with one primary philosophy it might be difficult as this is a modernist view, and we live in a post-modern world where multiplicities abound. This is social constructivism at its best. It’s okay to be confused, although, I think I am so confused as to be a screaming wreck right now!

Time to talk to the supervisor and get this baby on track. Maybe Deleuze. I had thought Shulman, but I think now it’s too limiting, although he is useful. They are ALL useful, but where to place them and how much should I refer to them?

And where does Bruner come into this? And Lave and Wenger? And Deci and Ryan? Help!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s