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 ?
1. I
