This course is about digging beneath the surface and examining the assumptions and dynamics that are at play in the issues we’re facing. Module 2 involves exploring a few “tools” for uncovering these assumptions and dynamics. However, there are many more frameworks and tools that can be used. There's a list provided in a reading we'll get to later, but the list is by no means comprehensive. If you want to jump ahead to take a brief look, this reading is at http://schoolsteachersparents.wikidot.com/analytic:paradigms-assumptions. Please feel free to incorporate any of these into your work, especially if they fit with your particular interests.
At the same time, all of us need to use a variety of these approaches to really understand what may be taking place. Multiple perspectives are necessary for a thorough and more accurate understanding. If we were to only use one perspective, we are at the mercy of that perspective and have no really understanding of the contexts and dynamics of what is taking place. It doesn't much matter what particular allegiance (theoretical or philosophical orientation) one has. Looking at all issues from multiple perspectives is essential.
Someone mentioned on day 1 the idea that they had to be “neutral” about a decision-making process (similar issue to not talking about salaries). The whole idea of “neutrality” tends to silence and mandate conformity among particular groups. In addition, it can be a more subtle pressure that perpetuates a culture of fear. If people were not to maintain “neutrality,” they could suffer some set of consequences. Who benefits from "neutrality?" It's similar to the notion of "civility." At NAU and many other universities, administrators admonish people for not being civil and push for any communications to be civil. Translated that means that no one can have an emotional stake in the conversations or can talk with any conviction about points of view that challenge the administration's agendas. Again we can ask the question, "who benefits from civility?"