Checklist
of "Nasty" Questions to Pose
regarding
development analyses and initiatives
First to myself
then to others....
Tentative definition
A "nasty question"
is one which one would tend to avoid asking oneself about one's own
paper/position but which would find reason to use as the basis of (informed) criticism of a
viewpoint with which one disagrees. Such questions, when based on a real understanding of the
viewpoint expressed, can most contribute to its evolution.
1. Missing elements
1.1. data
1.2. constraints
1.3. unstated assumptions
1.4. are you alerted to ... / do you take into account
1.5. ignored
1.6. to what extent do you react to ...
1.7. discipline perspectives not included
2. Distorted
elements
2.1. facts distorted
to validate evasiveness or defensiveness
2.2. how does your perspective distinguish between useful critiques of opposing positions and
deliberately distorted representation of those positions ?
3. Self-serving
3.1 . whose interests are served
3.2. hidden agendas
3.3. to whom is this being polite, and why
3.4. who does this fail to criticize, and why
3.5. who funded this study, and why
3.6. how does your
perspective ensure the generation of internal self-criticism ?
4. So what
4.1. if it is true
4.2. if it is accepted/implemented
4.3. how does this handle the viewpoints which it condemns.
5 . Opposition
5.1. how does the
perspective envisage dealing with those holding opposing views
5.2. how does the view relate to other views incompatible with it
5.3. with what view does this stand in dialectical relationship
5.4. what is the negative characterization of this viewpoint.
5.5. to what extent does the thesis you oppose contain valid points
5.6. if your opponent's evaluation of the weak points in your position proved correct, how
would this affect your position
5.7. how would your position be affected if the weak points in the position of opposing scholl's
of thought proved to be essential to the design of the most appropriate learning experience
whereby their adherents could transcend that position
5.8. how would your position continue to evolve or be renewed if opposing positions ceased to
exist
5.9. what provision does your position make for the continued existence of opposing positions
competing with yours for adherents
5.10. to what characteristic abuses, errors and excesses is your position prone - how are you
sure that you are able to detect them - what safeguards are required to avoid them ; how have
these safeguards been incorpora ted into your position
5.11. do any special safeguards built into your position (to guard against particular excesses
and abuses of opposing systems) run the risk of dangerous hyperactivity if they are not matched
by adequate opposition - how is such possibly hyperactivity detected within your perspective
5.12. what provision is made within your perspective to permit the imposition of constraints
which are only adequately detected by other perspectives ?
5.13. is it passible that your interaction with opposing posi- tions (by which you could best be
stimulated to improve your own) is such that no effective communication is possible
5.14. given that opposing positions are both logically and operationally incompatible with your
own, has your pers- pective evolved any explicit dynamic with respect to such opposition -
other than its progressive elimination or mutual isolation
5.15. in any dialectical relationship with opposing positions, how does your "position" retain
a
sense of identity if it is obliged to evolve a dynamic pattern of "movement" in response to
the
movement of opposing perspectives ?
5.16. how would you interpret any accusation that adherents of your position act "aggressively"
against those of opposing positions - are you sure that they are not exibiting "defensiveness"
5.17. are adherents of your position engaged in "dialogue" with those of others as an exercise
in
proselytization rather than as an effort to acknowledge their collective identity
6. Openness
6.1. how is this
view likely to be viewed/judged by the future
6.2. what will
be the nature of the future thesis to which this view will be the anti- thesis.
7. Contradictions
7.1. what are the
contradictions inherent in this perspective 7.2. to what extent are changes
envisaged in fact real changes (in terms of intimating newparadoxes) or to what extent do they
indicate change in the sense of exchanging two sets of contradictions
7.3. do you understand
the extent to which your perspective is itself part of the problem with
which society is faced, and does this help you to understand the nature of its solution
7.4. how are you
sure that the actions engendered by your position mill not merely transform
the problems you presently confront into others to which your position is inherently insensitive.
8. Unanswered
questions
9. Implications
9.1. even if it
is true, is anyone empowered to do anything about it as a result of this analysis
9.2. are these
constraints on the implementation of this perspective within the time horizon
9.3. has this perspective
already been overtaken by events, if not is it likely to be overtaken in
the near future
9.4. have you considered
implications of your study for :
concrete dissemination, training and action, education
In case of action: Have you discussed a strategy ?
Who shall do what how, when and where (not only why ?)
In case of dissemination: any proposals for a form of presentation beyond articles/books ;
talks/discussions ?
In case of training / education: any concrete proposals ?
10. Space and
time limitations
10.1. Would your
conclusions be different in other regions Could there be an ethnocentric bias
10.2. Would there
be a process in what you have explored Could there be "tempocentric" bias
10.3. What features
of your position can be generalized spatially, and which features are tied to
the setting within which they evolved
10.4. What features
of your position will tend to remain unchanged overtime, and which
features will probably have to evolve
11. Social space
and level limitations
11.1. Would your
conclusions be different for other groups; Could there be a MAMU (middle-
aged male university) bias
11.2. Could there
be a level bias in your approach; What would be the conditions, implications
at the levels :
12. Limitations
of intellectual style
12.1. Would you
say your paper is primarily directed towards :
paradigm discussion;
data analysis; theory formation; commentary; pragmatics
If one or more
of these is missing, how mould you justify that, or make up the deficit ?
12.2. Would you
say your paper primarily sees reality in terms of :
actors and interaction;
structures; processes in the past; processes also in the future
If one or more of these are missing, how would you justify that, or make up the deficit ? What
about culture and nature, production and distribution ?
12.3. Would you
say your paper primarily discusses goals; processes; indicators; tools;
concrete fields
If one or more
of these are missing, how would you justify that, or make up for the deficit ?
13. Pre-logical
biases : does your paper reflect a preference for :
13.1. Order vs
disorder, namely for fluiditity, muddle, chaos, etc. -- or for system, structure,
conceptual clarity, etc.
13.2. Static us
dynamic, namely for the changeless, eternal, etc. -- or for movement, for
explanation in genetic and process terms, etc.
13.3. Continuity
us discrete, namely for wholeness, unity, etc. -- or for discreteness, plurality,
diversity, etc.
13.4. Inner us
outer, namely for being able to project oneself into the objects of one's
experience (to experience then as one experiences oneself) -- or for a relatively external,
objective relation to them.
13.5. Sharp focus
vs soft focus, namely for clear, direct experience -- or for threshold
experiences which are felt to be saturated with more meaning than is immediately present
13.6. This wold
vs other wold, namely for belief in the spatio- temporal world as self-
explanatory -- or for belief that it is not self- explanatory (but can only be comprehended in
the
light of other factors and frames of references)
13.7. Spontaneity
vs process, namely for chance, freedom, accident, etc. -- or for explanations
subject to laws and definable processes.
In view of any
such preferences, to what extent do you consider that your dialogues with those
of different preferences are predictable in content or form ?
and of course a performance of Argentine Tango while I taught in Rejkavik...
1. Andreas
