Marie Scarborough's Blog

There are many influences that helped me with my writing skills. Today, I will only talk about one.

Elementary Logic was a Philosophy class that I took in my second year, because it looked like an interesting elective.  I never dreamed that I would leave the class with a life-long memory of an Eureka moment.  At the time, I was struggling a little with the concept of an academic essay, especially because our Czech high school education supported a less structured, more creative writing style.  I really tried to follow the prescribed essay format and to keep my writing tight, but I could not dig myself out of the B range.  It was a Philosophy class, rather than an English class, that changed this.  I will describe elementary logic as basic math that uses words, rather than numbers.  

Writing is about communicating ideas efficiently, using language as a tool.  If the ideas are not complete, it will show in the writing no matter how polished the language is (unless we try to conceal it with language, as Judith pointed out in one of our classes).  Not being comfortable with using language can successfully murder the most brilliant idea.  The Eureka of my Philosophy class was moving beyond the obvious and seeing language and ideas, premises and conclusion, mathematical concepts and diagrams……as one entity.  This is when I learned to acknowledge my ideas and organize them better.

Dialectic is a method that I encountered many times in the past, in reference to different philosophical and political contexts.  I will bind the bits and pieces of what I remember together, sharing with you my understanding of the concept.  Please take this as an outlook only, as I did not revisit this method in depth lately although I intent to; it is fascinating.  I will be using themes and thoughts that I accumulated from my philosophy and history classes as well as various conversations, constructing a blend of thought communicated by people whose names I no longer remember. (Wow, unintentional plagiarism and an unreliable research source at once!)

Dialectic is a powerful method, because it employs a question answer process to either progress or to arrive at a desired conclusion.  This process can take place within an individual, or in groups of two or more.  Two biggest historical personas that come to my mind are Socrates and Hegel.  I relate two visual sequences of what dialectic looks like and behaves.  The first one is of stairs.  A person climbs up the first stair, stops, and asks: “What is the purpose of MALAT?”. The person either reflects or discusses this question with others, and decides that the purpose of MALAT is to question the learning strategies currently employed by the education system in Canada in light of the fast changing technological era.  The person takes this answer with him or her to the second stair, leaving rejected answers behind on the first stair.  The dialectic process is more complex and less linear that that, however.  The second visual aid I have is that of a human body.  Imagine that the questions and the information is what we eat.  Our body subsequently digests the questions and information (seemingly endless chemical and biological functions are engaged in this digestive process for various reasons-the dialogue), refuses what it does not need and keeps what is useful.  What is useful to the body encourages its growth.  

What I really should do now is to research and find the authors of these visuals, as I am sure they exist.

And yes, this is an oversimplification

How is “procrastination” viewed in our linguistic, societal and cultural context?  Comments very much like the following appear first in my memory bank when considering the word: “He is such a procrastinator!  He does everything at the last minute-it drives me insane!”  Or: “She can’t ever get anything done on time.  If she started her projects when she is supposed to rather than procrastinating, she would not have the problems she has”.  For me, the word procrastination bears a negative connotation.  Disclaimer: I did not research if this assumption is true for the majority of persons in, let’s make this specific, the Canadian linguistic, societal and cultural context.  (This is a perfect example of MacKeracher’s description of the Constructive Dimension of Dialectical Process…this is my truth and it works in my world…hahaha )

To get serious again….if in fact it is a common perception that the word procrastination has negative connotation, I would like to challenge such perception.  There are a couple of variables to consider first, though.  When it comes to group work and the timeline that the group agrees on, procrastination of one member may be unfair or detrimental to the rest of the group.  Similarly, if an individual deadline is necessary for a larger deadline of a wider group, not meeting the individual deadline, depending on circumstances, may not be welcome by or harm the larger community.  However, putting these too variables aside and assuming that deadlines are met despite procrastination, I argue that the negative connotations that may accompany the word procrastination are not justified. 

 As this blog is my reflection rather than a formal study, I will use myself as an example.  I love to procrastinate.  I enjoy allowing my mind wander through past experiences, things experienced by others, information that I look up, general concepts and parallels, and bouncing ideas on others before I make a decision. Given the time allocated for the task and the complexity of the subject, I can confidently say that I will wait until the last minute and allow a deadline to time me out on a conclusion.  Is that a bad thing?  It may be and it may be not.  What are your thoughts?

In today’s reflection, I will compare two strategies which one can use to begin a research-based group assignment.  Some groups prefer to first consider the assignment and then embark to research target points and ideas, while other groups start with compiling research and draw their points and ideas from the compilation.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.  A group that creates a theory (or a thesis) first and then looks to support it with research may find that the thesis cannot be adequatly supported, or that the group favours certain research materials not because of their credibility, but because the findings fit the group’s thesis. 

Compiling a large body of research provides a group with a wide backround, from which they can subsequently draw their thesis, after an informed discussion.  The challenge for this approach is that the broadness of the research could be overwhelming. 

Both approaches work.  As with many things, the ideal path is likely in the middle of the two extremes.  In my Case Study group, we employed the research first thesis later approach, and it worked very well.  I learned a lot from that experience, as I usually am a “thesis first, research for support later person” when it comes to writing.  Having said that, very few thesis statement ever comes from thin air, so perhaps we all walk the middle path.

Amazingly enough, July 28, 2009 marked the first time that I participated in a Myers-Briggs assessment process.  Being quite resentful at first to put myself or anybody else into a four letter category, I talked to my class mates to find out how they felt about the process.  All of them commented on the usefulness of the assessment, which in turn made me to reflect more carefully on the positive aspects of the  assessment.  Playing work scenarios in my mind, I attempted to put my coworkers into different categories.  However, it was not until later that week, when we actively utilised the results of the MBTI system in our Journal Critique work group, that I understood how useful the assessment may prove in a particular concept.  In our group’s case, each of us disclosed to each other our MBTI results, which then offered an opening for us to share our group work preferences and behaviours.  Although I still consider the process as leaning to the “generalisation” (or quantitative ) side, I no longer consider it unhelpful.