Hi Terry and others
thanks, Terry. it gets me thinking. first, we probably agree with one another more than it appears. second, i think it useful to think of 'creating values' and 'learning' not as expressions/statements of fact about, but rather expressions/statements of perspective on, the purpose of the work of research . thinking in this way, it is easier to allow and tolerate their co-existence as useful thoughts.
as to Terry's suggestion to open the focus of discussion, i agree. anyone has something to say on that?
in the meantime, i would like to get back to Terry's even earlier comment dated Feb 9, 2004 (sorry that i can't let go).
Terence Love wrote:
> I read a strong enthusiasm for 'open review' in recent posts. The choice of whether to use open review seems to me very much a matter of what sort of research and what sort of conference. I'm concerned that the severe disadvantages of open review are not being well addressed and that some of the arguments for 'open review' appear to be based on echoing the award processes of selecting or judging art pieces, designs form craft traditions, or literary pieces such as novels or poems. Research findings are in the realms of theory - a different game.
I buy into the idea that the choice of whether to use open review is a matter of what sort of research and what sort of conference, (or for that matter, the idea that the type of review depends on the type of research and conference). But then, what sort of research is design research? and what sort of theory is design theory? Aha! we are caught.
The problem i see is that we are still trying to determine these two issues. that means, whatever concept we might have of design research/theory, it is temporary and evolving. and that implies, the type of review and conference cannot be solely depend on our present ideas of design research/theory, but also must be sensitive to the fact that our ideas on design are young. besides, our community consists of people from very diverse disciplinary backgrounds. review and conferences are mechanisms that are supposed to support rather than to inhibit the growth of our
ideas. it does us good to be more experimental and tolerant than other older (singular) research disciplines in terms of suggestions on how to review research work and run conferences, especially at this stage.
For example, personally, i don't find Keith suggestion - to accept all abstracts that sound interesting and get all authors together at a conference for critique and then rewrite - so unsuitable for theory work. I understand that theory writing in sciences is the most creative part of scientific research. with respect, i think theory writing, in some aspect, is very close to creative writing: it requires imagination. no?
hope it makes sense. and thanks to all who have participated in this discussion, i have learned.
bye for now, there is no part 4. - rosan
Terence Love wrote:
> Hi Rosan,
>
> A quick tuppenths worth.
>
> I agree learning is important for individuals and for society. Seems to me though that researchers and scholars have a special and specific role they are employed for.
>
> I feel the primary task of professional researchers/scholars is to create new good quality high value information rather than to be learners. The learning seems to be secondary. For professional researchers, learning is mainly needed to get specific competencies to a standard sufficient to produce new high value information (it's also often fun - but that bit we are not usually paid for!).
>
> Second, I suspect we may have been up a gum tree concentrating only on the review processes. Perhaps it is better to open the focus. As I understand it, the aim of focusing on review processes has been to address inequality and bias. In the decisions about who/what is to be published or accepted to present at conferences, the reality is reviewers are very much a secondary aspect of the process. Reviewers are in almost all cases advisers only. Usually, the actual authority for making publication and presentation decisions is with the editors, publishers,
> conference chairs etc. I've seen many cases though where reviewers have felt they should personally decide whether a paper should be accepted or not!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Terry
>
>
|