3. Entorno experimental
4.3. Ejemplos de estimaciones
.. {l/./)
Noah possessed an extremely inclusive view of knowledge. She felt a strong need to "know it all". Knowing that she seemed 'odd' (NI) to other people because she actually enjoyed the "disciplined subjectivity"356 of exploring "all the possibilities" (N3) to knowledge, it was her conscience, she said, that effected the ways she chose to "study everything"(N3) in a search for the "beauty of an idea"(NI.1) or the "guts of it".(N3) She allowed neither other people oor institutions to restrict this aspect of her study, for to know anything, "you should really know it all".(N2.5.6C8) This dominant epistemic belief had been reflected in Noah's common-sense activity of reading several books on any one topic. It would be reflected again in her consistent manner of studying at the university, the details of which will be examined shortly. Noah differed markedly from the other typifications in one crucial respect, and this was in the combined effort to ignore social contact while she 'came to know', and the need 'to know it all'. Generally speaking, 'knowing it all' meant the given course knowledge was read completely before she allowed the intrusion of other people's essay questions into her thoughts. Then, she thought, the assigrunent topic "would not bias" (N23) her into early and unintelligible decisions. Only after she felt she had come to grips with the essence of the given topic did Noah read the assignment choices and refine her understandings to those relevant to the question she chose.
The flexibility of a deliberate open-mindedness appeared to be the intention behind Noah's "coming to know it all," especially prior to the need to make decisions about what she 'knew'. In taking care
oot to jump to conclusions, Noah realised (N1.2,3) that "events are open to more than one
interpretation, and some interpretations make better sense than others"357 because people possess different ways of seeing the world. As a consequence (she thought) there must be many truths
rather than a single one and if knowledge and knowing really was relative to time, place and
person, then it was necessary to "build a goodfoundation" (NI) of general knowledge, not search solely for an Absolute.(N3.4)
TIle 'foundation' of knowledge each typification formed was sourced from a variety of social contacts and each source was approached differently by each typification. The sources included
primary experts, alternative viewpoints, teachers, other students, family and friends and their own
taken-for-granted beliefs. The most obvious distinction between these sources of information was
whether they were objectivated (which enabled an undisturbed quietude for reflecting on the written materials) or subjectified (which enabled the immediacy of a social construction of knowledge).
356 Belenky et al, 1986:226
357 Belenky et al, 1986:94
t£pistemoCogical �Corations
. . • .Pt.llCn.6
.. (I/./.) Noah fonned a dialogical relationship with experts, and the originators of ideas, seeking what was on their minds and 'asking' questions of their ideas by 'conversing' with her 'inner voice', as well as comparing what was in "the mind's eye" (N2.1) of several different authors. In this way she found the essences of specific infonnation could be located. Experts were, to Noah, persons whom shethought "earned" (N3) such a title. They were likely to be the authors of original ideas or arguments or people who "knew their subject matter inside out".(N2) But rather than simply accept what they
said, from an uninterrupted textual distance, she explored their meanings with part of her 'self
removed', "arguing through the eyes of the authors"(NI). and "picking the eyes out" (N3.2) of related points of view as she "stoodfor a while in their ShoeS".(NI.3) Interestingly in this study, Noah was alone in her use of this visionary metaphor, and her inquisitive use of epistemological types of
questions. How did the minds of idea-originator's worK? (N1.2.3) How did experts justify what they knew?(Nl.3) For Noah, the challenges of internalising were the ideas and the arguments, not the people themselves. lSI For instance, she challenged:
Some ofGidden's arguments against Industrial Society are not sound. He does not justify them well .... His mind goes all over the place but I find that quite exciting, quite challenging.
Noah 3.3 The only time that the typificatory ideal of this study broke apart for Noah, was once she was making preferential judgements about particular theoretical 'models'.(N3) For Noah(3). Weberian interaction appealed more than other paradigms because it could be used to legitimate smaller social
situations than Marx could explain.(N3.1) However Noah (I) found the same theory "left me stone cold dead ... because I didn't see any particular IlJgic in it".(NI.5) But such judgements could only arise when Noah felt she already "knew it all" (N1.2.3) as completely as she could:
If I was going to be a sociologist, I would be an interpretive sociologist ... I find it more rekztive. lt relates more to life as I understand it. I can see some of
his concepts .. , I buy into the idea about it being an individual's meaning ...
that the situation creates the reality. I mean the Marxists and the structural functionalists say society makes the individual ... That doesn't alllJw for
individual change but I'm quite an individualist, being creative and different and all that.
Noah 3.4
The act of intemalising new theories had its problems while Noah was a first year student. Sometimes the distance educator had sent the students "too much" material written by
experts.(N2.l.I22S) Although interpretation was not much of an issue because of her prior reflection on the topic (N1.1.332). and her habit of rereading the material anyway, (N1,2,3) for Noah 'too much' material gave rise to several overlaying issues - of time, of lecturers' expectations, of the retaining the special characteristics of theorising, and of mental stimulation.
3S8 Bele� et aI, 1986:226. While "systematically empathising with the {objectivatedJ participants.{sheJ