I do not like dreaming about school work. I need my sleep.
Non-positivist research has some balance if one considers the questions initiating the investigation are the framework built from positivist results a researcher may already know or have come across as the researcher toys with his/her ideas for exploration.
Where do the ideas come from?
The challenge in yesterday's discussion was not understanding how different people may execute a pirouette the same way but that most students are taught to do a pirouette the same way and the student/professional/teacher learns how to adapt set instructions for how to do a pirouette to the idiosyncrasies of that person's body and ability which make the journey to execute a pirouette different. This is learned through trial and error. Failure creates success. If I and we as a group of students and instructors look at how to do a pirouette in this manner then have we already begun a non-positivist journey without having to expound some grandiose process proving the reality of our own non-positivist/qualitative journey from early years in our training.
Is it fair to equate quantitative with positivist and qualitative with non-positivist? With the given example of how students typically adapt to what their bodies are able to accomplish as most instructors do not give different instructions to every student, does this mean our non-positivist journey of dualism may actually be monism as both types of thought are necessary for the non-positivist journey?
Do statistics from non-positivist research and journey create positivist results even when more questions may be generated? If no additional questions are generated from a non-positivist approach does this mean the journey was positivist because that journey disproved or may not have proven any results?
I think I will count today's blog as my daily journal entry. Much about which to think. I may need a nap to recover from the dreams of heated discussions around large conference tables.