File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1999/bhaskar.9902, message 89


From: "Martti Puttonen" <marttipu-AT-jazz.cc.spt.fi>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:36:12 +0200
Subject: BHA: teaching argumentative skills to nurses along the DCR



All, interested in reflecting  practical dialectics


Maybe some persons in the list  are interested in commenting this 
practical work: 

How to teach to nurses scientific/thinking/ argumentation skills?

That was my problem when having the personal task of teaching 
students philosophical thinking (that was the official name ot that 
course, 1 credit) in nursing  at Polytechnical level. For me it has 
been quite clear for many many years, that education in nursing and 
in social work in Finland and other western countries in spite of its 
gradually strenghtening scientific (quite irrealist) basis is 
strongly fragmented (with special nursing ethics with the only first 
two dialectical degrees (1M, 2L), with logical arguments without 
dialectical argumentations, with great concern in  abstract latently 
positivistic theoretiziation, anthrocentrism, etc.). About this 
fragmentation there has been so little dialectical and other 
argumentation in my local contexts and this discussion seems to 
become more fragemented somehow. 

But this is not my point, here. Rather I am pondering  'all the 
time', how to arrange (carry out, construct educational tasks, 
philosophical contents, etc)  the basic course in scientific thinking 
along the lines of DCR. My main thesis in doing that was and 
still is, that connection or integration of realist science and 
eudaimonistic realist ethics is necessary and possible. How to do or 
from where to start among young mainly female students who have no 
much conceptions about philosophy, social and behavioral sciences? 
Although it is the question about the whole  education and courses, 
not only the problem of philosophical course. 

Some characteristics of my course. I have recently written a 
(lecture) book (of 93 pages with references to some main 
philosophical theorists of different 'epistemological' in 
philosophical sciences) in Finnish for having more strength in the 
lectures and educational conversations with students. The book's  
name is 'Towards constructive working': 

 - Stressing the underlying basis of philosophical 'analysis' in the 
context of scientific enquiry and their interelatedness.  

 - Underlinig much philosophical  argumentation in the broad sense, 
both logical (induction, deduction, etc) argumentation, and some 
ideas about dialectical logics and their interrelatetness, both 
literary or verbal, and also rethorical argumentation in order to 
broaden the subjective conception about knowledge and knowing.  

 - Making some preliminary philosophical classifications of the 
philosophy of science together with various conceptualizations about 
'social structures'  in concrete social working situations and 
problems and evaluating them (real dialectical ethics, real 
dialectical science) in subjective reflection and in interactional 
conversations.  

 - Constructing some general descriptive classifications about 
various ethical issues (modern, various postmodern ethical 
conceptions, and 'constructive ethics' behind (and embrassing) them 
in some general social working practices. It means to have more 
broad ideas about different and mutually exclusive constructive 
approaches. Paying attention to a more contextual ethics apart from 
its ordinary platonic ethical theories in nursing sciences)

 - Not paying much attention to anthroposentric problem in this 
student's thinking phase, because students do not have much 
scientifically or otherways broadened reflection and not much 
expecially logical (dialectical and or logical) argumentation skills. 

It seems to me that I can't describe my course's practice and my 
book very exactly here. It is a pity that this book or booklet is not 
in English in order to receive more critical and other comments. 

Everyone can see how huge problem I have had in front of me, 
which is doomed to progress also  to some irrealist directions, (and 
towards having some tools of their analysis), too. Apart from other 
educational projects in this sphere this project of mine has been 
purposeful and quite much reflected one. 

I am quite satisfied with my teaching project, because I have at 
least succeeded in making some divergence (not necessarily crucial 
one) in practice from the positivistic and or overhermeneutic causal 
arguments towards to a more reflective and subjectively stronger 
argumentation. Maybe it is worth mentioning, that earlier I have 
made some psychological research on dialectical thinking and on its 
development.

I can't see or imagine or  construct other philosophical sound and 
alethic way in health and social work practices than that of DCR, 
where there is more real possibility to construct scientifically 
meaninfull ethics, which is a politically understood  prequisite for 
qualified  professional working practice nowadays more often.


Martti Puttonen, Finland, 
                         Lecturer in Behavioral and  Social Sciences  
                           


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005