MAIT undertakes open or semi-structured interviews, in which participants are presented with Dooyeweerd's aspects in friendly form and asked which aspects might be meaningful to them. Aspects are not used to constrain, so much as to open up spaces in which participants can express what is meaningful. Dooyeweerd's aspects are good for this since they are spheres of meaning. After the participant seems to have said all they want to, then the researcher detects missing aspects and ask if they might be relevant. Usually, the answer is "Yes" and the participant likes to say some more. MAIT depends on the researcher being a person of empathy.
Suzanne Kane discovered something very important: using Dooyeweerd's aspects helps people open up. Often they say "Yes, I took that for granted", "Yes, but I thought that would be irrelevant to you" or even "Yes, but that's usually an issue we don't talk about (e.g. slightly embarassing)". This is in stark contrast to those who would expect using Dooyeweerd's aspects to constrain. I think that perhaps whether Dooyeweerd's aspects open up or constrain might depend on the style and empathy of the researcher.
More has to be written on this. However, if you want to find out more, contact me for Suzanne Kane's 2006 PhD thesis or papers. Also, look at the page on MAKE, which is similar.
This page is part of a collection that discusses application of Herman Dooyeweerd's ideas, within The Dooyeweerd Pages, which explain, explore and discuss Dooyeweerd's interesting philosophy. Email questions or comments would be welcome.
Written on the Amiga and Protext.
Compiled by (c) 2012 Andrew Basden. You may use this material subject to conditions.
Created: 7 August 2012 Last updated: