Dear Dick,
I agree that as an enquiring human being it is more real to participate
in situations personally. In some areas of practice that are extremely
situation specific such as some aspects of community development it is
hard to envisage the creation of satisfactory outcomes without participation.
I feel from my experience as a human being, that 'real' life beats a
'theoretical' life hands down. And there is a reasonable argument that
it is even better if one avoids second hand interpretations of all forms
- e.g. tv, recorded music, films, books, theatre, art, newspapers, spectator
sports, gossip, reflective contemplation, etc.
In regard to PhD research, however, I feel that it is unhelpful to overemphasis
e the role of experiential data collection - especially if it is used
manipulatively by faculty to tempt new researchers to be inappropriately
enthused about their research training or research projects, or worse,
to develop a cult of 'personal genius'.
My understanding is that the two main planks of the phd are 'the individual
construbution to knowledge' and ' the demonstration of competency in the
skills of research and analysis appropriate to the PhD level (i.e. the
initiatory level for being a professional researcher)'.
The 'individual contribution to knowledge' is to add to the world's store
of knowledge in such a way that the same knowledge can be used by others
and doesn't have to be redeveloped by each individual. In essence, this
requires researchers not only to develop that knowledge and conceptualise
it, but also to describe it in the least ambiguous way in a generic publicly
accessible format that makes all of its properties and dependencies (underlying
knolwedge, analyses, data) available to those who would wish to use it.
A core issue of work at this level is that the peer reviewing process
should be such that it is possible for most people to be confident in
the validity of this new knowledge without having to redo its creators
data collection and analyses.
In short, the whole purpose of the PhD/research endeavour is to create
knowledge that other researchers can reuse without needing to go to primary
data or direct empirical data collection. This goes against your suggestion
that the primary focus should be on experiential data
On the other side, the demonstration of competence in research, it is
clear that some research must necessarily involve direct empirical data
collection. A small amount of this is also likely to require personal
participation. Across all forms of research, in most cases, person participatio
n is problematic or not possible - e.g. most natural science research
and technological research is out of bounds to direct personal data collection
because people are too big, too small, are not perceptive enough in the
dimensions on which data is being collected, are inefficient, or are ineffectiv
e - machines are better. In much social science research is better done
in other ways - I am thinking of situations in which knowledge is built
as an accumulation of data on a large number of circumstances, or where
personal participation masks social effects. Across all disciplines there
is only a tiny window in which researchers' personal presence and experiential
interaction in data gathering situations is essential.
I'm not arguing, however, that researchers themselves do not benefit
from participation and experience - and in ways that are useful to others
using their research outcomes.
One example of where it appears necessary for practical researcher experience
is where there is criticism that theory about a situation doesn't align
well with the experiences of those living in the situations (e.g. criticism
that development and technology transfer theories don't match with the
life situations of the poor). The criticism in this case may, however,
mor eproperly point to a failure of the peer review process - or, more
controversially, it may be that the people in that situation don't understand
their situation (I can think of several examples from my own life experience).
In these sorts of context, the main role of direct experiences may be
that it offers researchers a basis for improving their skills at crap
detection in theory making (this can be explained fairly well through
a neuro-physiologically based model of affective cognition).
At a PhD level, it appears that the focus and time commitment of research
trainees would be expected to lie in many other more conventional areas,
with 'direct experience' in there, but as only small part of most research
projects.
Best wishes
Terry
_________________________
Dr Terence Love
GPO Box 226
Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel & Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Email: [log in to unmask]
_________________________
========================================
From: Richard Buchanan <[log in to unmask]>
To: Internet Mail::[[log in to unmask]]
Subject: Re: Instutionalized knowlege Re: Tacit knowledge: rude..
Date: 8/23/01 9:57 AM
Rosan,
I don't know if you want to refer to yourself as institutionalized these
days!
There is no particular problem with what you brought up. If you are
investigating a problem in the area of poverty, it is a pretty good idea
to talk with people in poverty. With anything you are studying at the
doctoral level, it is important to bypass the literature that seeks to
interpret and explain phenomena and go directly to the phenomena. If
you stayed only with the literature, you would not be a doctoral
student. In short, doctoral study is all about Inquiry. It is not
about the interpretation of texts--what I call Semantics. The latter
is
important for knowing what others have found, but that is never a
substitute for direct encounter with phenomena. Experiencing phenomena
gives one data, and it is actually very hard to find data in the
literature. The literature is about Interpreting data, not presenting
it in its most concrete form.
This holds, I believe, for the actual work on a dissertation. The
preliminary and comprehensive phases of doctoral study of course look
at
the literature--which one learns to read very very carefully.
Dick
|