I have a story to tell. It's my story but it involves others, so it's their story too. But I'm going to be telling this story, my words, my narrative. Heavily influenced, but mine all the same.
It is A story. Not THE story. This is important. I don't believe, and can't believe, that it could ever be THE story. A different narrator would create a different story, even if the same 'others' were involved.
When I started the EdD I gave up reading stories, or thought I had. I rationalized that novels were a luxury that had to go, along with playing hockey. Classes at the gym replaced the hockey, and academic reading replaced novels. I stepped fully into the 'non-fiction' aisle.
A question from the first set text has stayed with me:"What must be added to a story to make it scholarship?"
It seems there is no clear answer to this. Such a person says it should be this. So-and-So says it should be something else. A.N. Other disagrees with both. To a seasoned teacher, but novice researcher, like myself I have found this incredibly frustrating. Have some people really got nothing better to do with their time. Better stories to tell.
Having said that I have found some of the reading on the philosophy of education and interesting. I particularly enjoyed the dialogue between Socrates and G.O.D. in Garry Potter's 'the philosophy of social science'. For a while I was drawn to critical realism. I appreciated what I understand to be the pragmatic nature of it, although some of the finer details elude me at this stage.
Reflecting on this question of 'A story' or 'THE story'. I don't think that, even through our imperfect gaze, that there is a 'THE story' to be discovered, as if 'THE story' exists somewhere, hovering, waiting to pounce.
So there, I've said it. I am a relativist. I have a story to tell. It will be my story. With hard work I will make it scholarly, the first step being to justify my position.
This could very possible end up being the Never Ending Story (cue Limahl)