Discussion first readings

Convos about being legitimized as a discipline and how research responded to social conditions at the time.

Who gets heard and who has a chance to speak?

Should have privileged approach, or handle both through pluralism.

But pluralism creates a tension with the knowledge-making control that happened in the creation of disciplinary status. What North pinpoints, whether we like it or not, is that our field worked very hard to solidify an identity and with that comes boundaries in some ways. So this debate is in an essence trying to further or evolve us beyond the singular task of disciplinary formation but that formation creates the identity.

What is a methodological community? Can one exist?

Ede pg 21-22

How do we do work without negative argumentation?

What are your terms for research practices and processes? and What's your analytical frame? How do you make sense of that?