Hi all
on Tue, 21 Jan 2003, PALMER Mark wrote:
> ....as I tried to point out before the research question should drive
> the scope of your enquiries. Some folk start with research questions so
> broad as to be useless.
Without pushing the point, I should like to comment that there is a danger
here of being too reductionist. "Far better an approximate answer to the
right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong
question, which can always be made precise."
.....what is reductionist about knowing what questions you're asking? To be reductionist would be to reduce the answers to a series of simple statements. The kind of complexity that arises from genuine enquiry to which I think you're alluding is the reason why we need to have a fairly good idea about what the subject of our enquiry is.
It seems to me a common confusion, especially among politicians, that
research leads to fixed answers; true research is exploration, so we may
become more sure of the ground newly covered but the horizon is just as
distant and hazy.
...yes often research results in a better stating of the question, but my point is that if one starts with hazy questions the kind of exploration you seem to suggesting seems doomed to failure as it becomes increasingly hazy. What is more if you start with assumption, or a set of convictions as the basis of your exploration you will find these will always overide that exploration.
all the best,
Mark
|