I confess that I have only read (more like skimmed through) ‘Introduction’ and ‘Chapter 1’ of David Bohm’s ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’ (Reprinted in 2008, Routledge & Kegan Paul). Thus, I cannot say much about probably what is the most interesting aspect of this book, the quantum theory.
However, I found some interesting food for thought for both qualitative and quantitative research perspectives.
In page 19, Bohm explains, “Of course, the prevailing tendency in science to think and perceive in terms of a fragmentary self-world view is part of a larger movement that has been developing over the ages and that pervades almost the whole of our society today: but, in turn, such a way of thinking and looking in scientific research tends very strongly to re-enforce the general fragmentary approach because it gives men a picture of the whole world as constituted of nothing but an aggregate of an separately existent ‘atomic building blocks’, and provides experimental evidence from which is drawn the conclusion that this view is necessary and inevitable.”
As an interpretive researcher, making sense of any social phenomenon meant seeking out the context in which it is situated. However, in doing so, we tend to fragment the collected data into groups and categories, aggregating ‘atomic building blocks’ in the name of ‘seeking wholeness’. How can I obtain ‘wholeness’ without fragmentation?
I will be continuously thinking about what ‘wholeness’ and ‘fragmentation’ means.
No comments:
Post a Comment