Talk:Praxis intervention

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Improvements[edit]

Can anybody suggest how to further improve this article. I was condensing my article that runs about 60 pages into a single page. Is this article readable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habituspraxis (talk • contribs) 06:00, 8 April 2007

This article is vastly better than the original I saw, but I am sorry to say that it is still unreadable. I have four degrees (law, economics, science and politics) and thus am reasonably well read. However, this article is REALLY difficult to read and understand. It's overly burdened with conceptual ideas. And the use of language is also obscure. It needs to use simple language rather than the complex language of the subject. Good luck! Gillyweed 00:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gillyweed. I would try to make it lucid in future editing. I welcome anybody suggesting better sentence construction for easy readability. Thank you. -- habituspraxis —Preceding undated comment added Habituspraxis.

I'd like to second Gillyweed's comments -- even after multiple attempts, I could barely make sense of it.

Yes, the sentence structure should be simplified. But even before that you really need to clarify what it is you want to accomplish. Wikipedia is for lay people. Your goal should be clarity and simplicity -- not surgical precision.

May I suggest you start with some simple -- even intentionally simplistic -- definitions. E.g., "Praxis describes the cycle through which a person learns from experience and incorporates that learning into actions." Simply: what is it. Give some examples of what it is. Give some examples of what it isn't. And leave until later (much later) the distinctions between praxis and other words and the fine tuning made by philosophers.

I can't emphasize that enough -- leave the fine tuning until after your reader has a chance at understanding the basic idea.

DSBrowne —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 11 July 2007.

I agree: It's as much a matter of language and structure as anything else. The point is to communicate with people who don't already know what it is. Start with a simple definition of the main idea. If that's not enough, add a description as well. When you add new terminology, give definitions as you go. Some of the sentences are also too complex to be clear. Even when yo get the more complex stuff further down, it still needs to be clear.

Original Research?[edit]

I agree with Gillyweed that this is unreadable. I would also like the author to consider if the article contravenes Wikipedia policy on original research. Please see WP:NOR. An important question concerns the title of the article: is this a neologism? APB-CMX 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In additon to it being fundamentally ( as stated in Dr Madhu's posting below) a reworking of an original PhD thesis (the term "original PhD" being a tautology in itself!), it seems to me that the article is basically proselytising. There are no balancing viewpoints to be found anywhere in it. It is a stream of statements with not even an acknowledgement of any other interpretation or view and with little in terms of historical or cpontextual information. If it is not significantly altered I suggest that it simply be deleted.

LookingGlass 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it appears 'proselytizing' I too recommend its deletion.Dr.P.Madhu 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why erase it? I find it a very interesting article... This "wikipedia policy" obsession I find everywhere around here, is a real pain... A typical process of institutionalization and fossilization is taking place with wikipedia, a good playground for little cops... But anyway, thanks for contributing this article. I hope I'll find it back when I visit again... --82.83.117.2 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that opinion. That articles in philosophy should not conform to "surgical precision" while in wikipedia is a personal opinion, something that is not going to stand the test of time. The work is sharp, precise and to the point. Keep it up Madhu. —Preceding Doxa comment added by 203.110.243.22 (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the query "Original Research?"[edit]

  • The article is based on my PhD thesis.The thesis is reviewed to be a very good one.
  • It elaborates already existing "participatory action research"
  • Praxis method is already familiar with scholars- That can be verified from my citations.
  • This article may help action researchers want to use praxis method.
  • An article by me on this topic is accepted for publication by a peer reviewed international Sociology journal
  • I do not think the article suffers in spirit the ones disliked at wikipedia - that "introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument". I have substantiated my theory with highly reputed sources.
  • The technical terminologies or 'neologism' introduced is inevitable to convey the ideas communicated in the article. More over all the terminologies I used is already prevalent in academic discussions. The words like praxis, habitus, participant objectivation, practical consciousness, discursive consciousness etc. are very much in use in current sociology literature.These words are widely prevalent in the works of Bourdieu and Giddens- the most noted sociologists.The word 'praxis' is very common among philosophers and action researchers. However, these terminologies may not be familiar to persons not having acquaintance with current literature in sociology. To overcome this problem I have categorized the article within the fields of Sociology, methodology, philosophy and abstraction.
  • The article explains one of the post-positivist research methodology. The field of post positivist methodology is a growing one.
  • Of Course, if you find this article not fit to be represented at wikipedia please feel free to remove it. However, I believe the article has a relevance in explaining a new method in action research already being practiced.

I hope this explains.

Thanking You

Yours Sincerly Habituspraxis 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Habituspraxis[reply]

Based on the explanation by Habituspraxis I have added an WP:NOR tag to the article and invite comment from others. The user has admitted that the article is a summary of his own research and the title is a neologism. I do not wish to belittle his PhD thesis (this is an impressive piece of work in a field that I consider important) but I believe it may be more useful if the author used his expertise in expanding and editing existing articles. For example, the post-positivist article is a stub that could benefit from a section on research methodology. APB-CMX 02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an hasty conclusion.Habituspraxis 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Habituspraxis[reply]

you may find these guidelines useful: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It is normal practice to sign contributions to Talk pages. Also you may like to consider using 'strike through' rather than deleting old comments. APB-CMX 10:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Can there be a provision for automatic signing? Habituspraxis 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Habituspraxis[reply]

Praxis Intervention has already become an established research practice as it is cited in the "external sources" section of the article.The method is adopted in many of the on going research projects: http://www.smartlab.uk.com/blog/?page_id=152; http://www.welcomebb.org.uk/Sophie_ActionResearch/Methodologies.html; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0104-11692007000500003&script=sci_arttext

External sources[edit]

The list of sources for this article has gone over the top. This should not be a list of every internet reference that is vaguely connected with the subject. I especially object to links to subscription journal services such as sage and jstor, where it is not possible for the vast majority of wikipedia readers to see the relevant article. I propose cutting the list to a handful of links to open sources that directly refer to praxis intervention. APB-CMX 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APB-CMX should have done the editing instead of "talking" here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.254.194 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2007

It appears editors vainly project themselves as knowledgeable even in the areas they have no clue. Either APB-CMX should have edited the article or should recommended for the removal of the article. Incompetence to edit should not have been presented as scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.254.170 (talk) 8 July 2007

I do not think the links provided are irrelevant. But all the links may require annotation. However the banner "This article may not be compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia. To be compliant, it must be written from a neutral point of view and must not include unverifiable or unsuitable material, or original research.Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page" is an over reaction from the side of the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.128.111 (talk) 11 July 2007

I agree that the "External sources" section is a mess. I have cut it from the article and pasted it below. Biogeographist (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External sources section cut from article, 8 October 2019
External sources

On accuracy dispute/neutrality dispute/original research[edit]

1. The article is tagged as: non-neutral, inaccurate, and original research. 2. Of these three dispute claims, the neutrality and accuracy disputes can be refuted. The editor who labelled the article as "inaccurate" and "non-neutral" has not given any reason for his/her claims. 3. The dispute regarding "original research" also can be questioned as the concepts like praxis intervention is very much grounded in the existing social, social work and philosophical research as it is well proved by the first chapter of the PhD thesis attached.Dr.P.Madhu 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With deference to your qualifications and expertise I must disagree with both your points. I believe that your comments emanate from a rather different direction to that of the debate here. The NPOV / Accuracy disputes relate to the innate qualities of the article. It is not balanced in its essential style. Statements in the article auch as "Praxis, like practice, is part of our existence of every moment." are statements of belief and opinion. They may even be unnecessary but it is hard to say what is and is not strictly necessary to the article as it is written in a proselytising vein. The distinction between Praxis and Practice being made remains vague despite the difficult explanation given, which is itself predicated upon another moot concept, that of a "conjectural moment". Praxis is an already clearly defined word - it draws a distinction with the merely unavoidable repurcussions of existence, and it is therefore defined as not being "part of our existence in every moment". It is a function of thought and consideration, the translation of theory into action.

But in any case, whatever one's etymological or philosophical position on this, what seems quite clear is that this is indeed what is being alluded to: a philosophical position. As this is the case, then, as this is an encyclopedia, the point of view concerned should be clearly explained as such, the principles and foundations of it put forward and established as far as they may be, and these all compared and contrasted with other related ones. If this was done the result would be an article satisfying the NPOV guidelines. It has not been and so it doesn't. QED.

Your second point regarding original research appears to be similarly misguided. The fact that the contested original research contains some connection with prior concepts does not in itself make it unoriginal. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of any human utterance that is not based on prior concepts! But more than this the very fact that it is a PhD thesis unltimately an unavoidable proves the point being made. PhD's by definition are required to be original research! QED.

One final point is that your last sentence describes a circular logic which ultimately defeats itself.

LookingGlass 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LookingGlass

I should thank you for your useful suggestions.I have made some changes to the article. We can witness in plenty that Wikipedia tolerates many 'original' and yet to be established concepts and idea- may be to give an overview of such concepts. The idea of 'praxis intervention' though has some originality, i think can be tolerated as a wiki article. All ideas later become familiar were original once. Wikipedia since being an open encyclopedia, new concepts are reported earlier.I think that A PhD thesis can be original- but, when it is read and reported it need not be considered as original. Dr.P.Madhu 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research- Removal Recommendation[edit]

I am the author of the idea of "Praxis Intervention" as it is discussed in this paper and elsewhere. The praxis Intervention article of Wikipedia stands on my research work (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3497210/Praxis-Intervention). I wrote sections of this article without knowing one is prohibited from publishing one's own research. Later, one editor removed references to my research work from references saying that it is "conflict of interest". During this controversy, the article is reduced in scale from high to low. At least two articles are published in reputed journals citing this wikipedia article. Please see these articles: http://cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/1258/1332, http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/24075/1/52766_1.pdf. There is atleast one ongoing research is carried out using the idea:http://www.welcomebb.org.uk/Sophie_ActionResearch/Methodologies.html. Atleast one training manual taken the idea of Praxis Intervention probably from Wikipedia- and later they referred to my thesis: http://connection.europole.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=95&Itemid=41 One paper is written as this article directed a researcher to my thesis: http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms//Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Tilley_ANZCA08.pdf. The idea of praxis intervention appeared even in sage reference "encyclopedia of case study research" 2010 edition in page 726 (sage enclopedia describes "praxis intervention" in the following words: "At this point, it is important to clarify distinctions between action research and praxis-oriented research. As has been noted, praxis-oriented research must move beyond reflecting on personal and professional practice (a characteristic of action research) and into the realm of consciously using research to challenge and change societal injustices. Consistent with this description of praxis-oriented research, one interwoven application of praxis with action research is known as praxis intervention, which is a kind of participatory action research in which the participants are often referred to as members because of their active involvement in organizing, interpreting, and bringing about change through the research process. This form of praxis-oriented research seeks to create a sort of dissonance in the mind-sets of its members, prompting them to intervene in the world and struggle against structural inequalities and discriminations.").

In the mean time one editor probably because I disagreed with him/her in another article (the article on business ethics) removed the reference to my thesis saying this article has self-references (that is my thesis on "praxis intervention" and my other works related to the idea of praxis intervention- see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.P.Madhu). Now this article, without its main references is 'orphaned' to use a wiki terminology. I find the relevance of this article questionable at least three grounds: 1. Original Research 2. Orphaned 3. Low scale of importance.

For the above said reason, I recommend removal of this article. Without my thesis, which is an original research, i doubt whether this article will stand. Soon I will be publishing a new article somewhere else- an updated rethinking on praxis intervention. That article too will have no place here at wikipedia as that too will be another 'self reference' or "conflict of interest". I request you to remove the article from wikipedia for all the reason I mentioned above. As on present, it appears to me, presence of this article is an impediment to the idea of Praxis Intervention than facilitating it. Please remove this article and help me to undo my mistake of writing an idea in a wrong place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.P.Madhu (talk • contribs) 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either have this article with a reference to my work- or remove it from wikipedia.I agree the least with MrOllie's impatient editing that removed references to my research work. MrOllie should have done it only after consulting Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like the article to be deleted, follow the directions at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. If you find them too difficult, say so here and I will do it for you. - MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do it MrOllie. The article is based on my ORIGINAL idea. Please do remove the article on that account. I am not going to work around anything "too difficult". If you have an article based on an author without acknowledging him/her then it is plagiarism. Once again I tell you either keep the article with a ciation to my work or remove it. Let there be no ambiguity. This article is my offering to the people who work with marginalized. This is not self promotion. When editors do not have the wisdom to understand it my recomendation is to remove the article. I regret having contributed to wikipedia.Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are credited in the history tab of the article, this is all that is required based on the GNU Free Documentation License, which you agreed to when you submitted the text. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just about crediting the author of the Wikipedia article, but also about citing the source, for verifiability. Templates such as Template:Citizendium and Template:1911 are used in articles instead of just referring to the source in the edit summary – consensus is to credit authors although it may not be required by the GNU-FDL or CC-BY-SA. I have restored the references. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a self published source, not a WP:RS. - MrOllie (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That a source is self-published does not necessarily make it fail WP:RS. If Dr Madhu is an expert in the relevant field, then his self-published sources are acceptable (in his field of expertise), provided that reputable organisations have published his previous work in the past. However, the paper in question is not a self-published source; it is an academic paper which, I believe, was published by Mahatma Gandhi University, and is cited by at least 3 other academic sources according to Google Scholar. Being cited by other sources is another feature of a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De-prod rationale[edit]

I have removed the {{Prod}} templates from the article. I do not believe that deleting the article is the best way to go. If the author's concern is that the article does not credit him/her, then that can be addressed. Citing the sources of the article is required by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That the author of a source is also a Wikipedian does not mean that his work cannot be referenced. See Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flyvbjerg references removed[edit]

Two references were removed from the article in early 2013 per WP:CITESPAM. See discussion at User talk:Hu12#References removed from Praxis intervention for more details. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Praxis_intervention&oldid=1204897051"