Полное совпадение, включая падежи, без учёта регистра

Искать в:

Можно использовать скобки, & («и»), | («или») и ! («не»). Например, Моделирование & !Гриндер

Где искать
Журналы

Если галочки не стоят — только metapractice

Автор
Показаны записи 4911 - 4920 из 56300
Пока думаю над слайдами, у себя в журнале немного прокомментировал свой текст(еще загодя)))
http://bavi.livejournal.com/337629.html
But giving them a way in which to conceptualize the pattern
underlying dispersed facts gives them the power to control it
better.
A friend of mine who did a study of corporate mergers
discovered default remodeling. Everywhere he goes and mentions
it, executives will say, “God, that is what is going on.” In their
heads, these executives see examples of this concept. They are
empowered.
(c. 7)
http://groundedtheoryreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/GT-Review-vol-9-no-21.pdf

Категория должна обладать непреодолимой силой притяжения — будучи названной и описанной однажды, человек испытывает реакцию "точно, так и происходит!" + не может от неё отделаться в будущих наблюдениях за миром.
</>
[pic]
Glaser о литобзорах

eugzol в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1kJ0k3yHk&list=PLNCas4ucmlWPDDcKr6QJPOL_FI0jvzFmp
Шутит: мол, паттерн, который я наблюдаю с университетами, это то, что значительная порция университетских денег идёт на здания библиотек. Всегда большие здания, большие фонды. И они никуда не денутся! Я вижу, как студенты торопятся написать литобзор так, как будто библиотеки куда-то исчезнут.
Youtube "Glaser"http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=barney+glaser
Слушал на досуге старые записи Гриндера по синтаксису поведения и нашел один кусочек где он рассказывает такое, равное чему я не видел и не слышал вообще никогда/за многие годы.

JG: I wanted to became a master hypnotist. It was obvious for me I had a model which would allow me to achieve that - named Erickson. So I'm returning from my first visit, I listen to the tapes and read the transcripts of his inductions. Four of them. They lasted roughly 7 or 8 minutes each. And memorised each one of this inductions separetly. Having memorised the inductions so that I can re access them in context and still has enough sensory experience to commit externely for feedback purposes I then went about doing standard inductions to notice what classes of responses that this standard inductions delivered congruently elicited. To my delight as opposed to my been horrified. To my delight I one, one day after a week or so of this I discover myself in a middle of induction A I shunted sideways to B and included a little piece out of B which then went to C come back to B. Nice stack reality, nasted dependencies. And back to A. What I knew was I was beginning to generalize at that point. That is some class of stimuli in an environment were not only hooked up because of experience of doing A with a portion of A. Those same stimuli tended to occur in a certain portions of B, C and D. The generalization process... The game was afoot. I had broken out of what I had said. As my models for how to do hypnosis and was now making the class of mistakes which guaranteed I would generalize my experience.
RB: Like the child saying: we goes to the store. And begain to make the kind of mistakes that are going to lead it to the level of refinement that is going to be on a pattern level as opposed to a check list of content.
RB: Wow.
JG: Well.

Далее мой перевод:
ДГ: Я хотел стать мастером гипнотизером. Это было очевидно для меня что я имел модель которая позволит мне достичь этого - Эриксона. Так что я возвращаюсь с моего первого визита, я слушаю пленки и читаю транскрипты его индукций. Четыре из них. Они дляться приблизительно 7 или 8 минут каждая. И я запомнил каждую из этих индукций раздельно. Запомнив индукции так что я могу вновь получить к ним доступ в контексте и еще иметь достаточно сенсорного опыта чтобы вводить его в дело для целей обратной связи, я затем пошел делать стандартные индукции чтобы заметить какой класс ответов эти стандратные индукции донесенные конгруэнтно, вызывали. К моей радости, в отличии от моего ужаса. К моей радости я один, однажды после недели или или типа того деланья этого, я обнаружил себя в середине индуции A я переключился в сторону на B и включил маленький кусочек из B что затем привело к C, вернулось к B. Хороший стэк реальности, вложенные зависимости. И назад к A. Что я знал было что я начал генерализировать в этой точке. То есть некоторый класс стимулов в окружении был не только зацеплен благодаря опыту деланья A с порцией A. Тот же стимул имел тенденцию происходить в определенных порциях B, C и D. Процесс генерализации... Игра началась. Я разбил то что я сказал. Как мои модели того как делать гипноз и теперь делал класс ошибок который гарантировал что я генерализирую свой опыт.
РД: Как ребенок говорящий: мы идешь в магазин. И начавший делать тип ошибок который приведет его к уровню утонченности который будет на уровне паттерна в отличии от чек-листа контента.
РД: Ого.
ДГ: Хорошо.
источник: Anchoring the oldest mystery in in NLP 6A.mp3 44:20 сек по 46:28
Предлагаю проанализировать то, что делал Гриндер. Никакого "состояния ничего незнания" я тут не усматриваю и в помине.
With any data-gathering approach, consider how participants invoke ideas,
practices, and accounts from both the larger and local cultures of which they
are a part. Keep in mind that they may not simply borrow from these cultures
or reproduce them; rather, they may make innovations as they adapt them to
serve their immediate purposes. Similarly, as researchers, we adapt language
and meanings as we record data; data are never entirely raw. Recording data
alone confers interpretations of them because we place a conceptual frame on
them through our use of language and understandings about the world.
Scrutinizing how you collect data and which data you obtain helps to locate
them. Such scrutiny also helps you when coding and categorizing because you
will be able to place your emerging analysis in its social context. Then you can
make more precise comparisons when coding data. By studying your methods,
you will improve both your methodological skills and the quality of your data.
Subsequently, your scrutiny may lead you to realize later that collecting another
kind of data with a different method may answer questions in your emerging
analysis. For large projects such as theses, you might use two or more datagathering
approaches. For a major funded research project, multi-method and
multi-site approaches often prove to be useful. If you construct a research proposal
that builds in possibilities for pursuing data in several settings, you have the
flexibility later on to use or develop methods that address emergent questions.
In the interim, we next move on to begin the analytic phase of our grounded
theory journey, through coding our early data.
(с.40)

Даётся такое мягкое разрешение выбирать свои методы сбора данных, ежели того требуют данные.
</>
[pic]
Интенсивное интервью

eugzol в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)

Intensive interviewing has long been a useful data-gathering method in various types of qualitative research. ... The in-depth nature of an intensive interview fosters eliciting each participant's interpretation of his or her experience. The interviewer seeks to understand the topic and the interview participant has the
relevant experiences to shed light on it (see Fontana & Frey, 1994; Seidman, 1997). Thus, the interviewer's questions ask the participant to describe and reflect upon his or her experiences in ways that seldom occur in everyday life.
The interviewer is there to listen, to observe with sensitivity, and to encourage the person to respond. Hence, in this conversation, the participant does most of the talking.
(с. 25)
Intensive interviews allow an interviewer to:
• Go beneath the surface of the described experience(s)
• Stop to explore a statement or topic
• Request more detail or explanation
• Ask about the participant's thoughts, feelings, and actions
• Keep the participant on the subject
• Come back to an earlier point
• Restate .the participant's point to check for accuracy
• Slow or quicken the pace
• Shift the immediate topic
• Validate the participant's humanity, perspective, or action
• Use observational and social skills to further the discussion
• Respect the participant and express appreciation for participating.
...
Intensive qualitative interviewing fits grounded theory methods particularly well. Both grounded theory methods and intensive interviewing are open-ended yet directed, shaped yet emergent, and paced yet unrestricted.
(c. 28)
You may find many things happening in the setting. Everything may seem
significant-or trivial. Reflect on what you are seeing and hearing. Depending
on your assessment, such questions as the following may help.
• From whose point of view is a given process fundamental? From whose
view is it marginal?
• How do the observed social processes emerge? How do participants' actions
construct them?
• Who exerts control over these processes? Under what conditions?
• What meanings do different participants attribute to the process? How do
they talk about it? What do they emphasize? What do they leave out?
• How and when do their meanings and actions concerning the process change?
(с. 20)
...
Consider the following ways to construct data:
• Attending to actions and processes as well as to words
• Delineating the context, scenes, and situations of action carefully
• Recording who did what, when it occurred, why it happened (if you can
ascertain the reasons), and how it occurred
• Identifying the conditions under which specific actions, intentions, and processes emerge or are muted
• Looking for ways to interpret these data
• Focusing on specific words and phrases to which participants seem to attribute particular meaning
• Finding taken-for-granted and hidden assumptions of various participants; showing how they are revealed through and affect actions.

Дочитали до конца.