ken,



you argue that because "research" does not appear on webster's dictionary lists of words following the definition of the prefix "re-" (= 1. again, anew; 2. back, backward) research cannot be read as re-search.  this is an extremely narrow and in the end mistaken reading of webster's list.  had you looked through some of the words, you might have discovered that the list is not exhaustive.  for example, it does not include the word "return", "repetition", "recharging", "reinterpretation."  would you still want to argue that because "return" is not on the list, it's meaning does not derive from "re-turn", that "re-charging" doesn't derive from repeatedly charging, say a battery, or that "re-interpretation" is not a new interpretation?  



you said that you would revise your view if i provide you with a good argument, here it is. now let's move on to a more productive conversation.



regarding the latter, let me remind you that a cornerstone of scientific research is its replicability. scientists challenge each other by repeating the same analysis, the same experiment to see whether the findings hold up, often leading to accusations of fraud (carelessness, wishful observer biases, etc.) if found not replicable.  this criterion can be maintained only because of the shared believe in the fixity of the natural world, a world without human intervention.



also, in coding data, say of interviews or texts, in measuring a phenomenon, scientists are required to show that the process is reliable.  this is achieved be recoding the same phenomena, duplication the measurement process and inferring their reliability from the agreement of the duplications. the agreement of the recoded data must not only be better than chance (what monkeys would code) but close to perfect agreement.  most respectable journals publishing finings from coded data require a demonstration that the data making process is reliable in this sense -- re-search in action!!! (if you care to google krippendorff and reliability you may find much written on this topic)  



replicability is rarely required in inquiries that support design decisions. justifications for a design must be convincing to those who matter, the stakeholders of a design, and not disappoint their expectations that it leads to a workable artifact -- or else result in the loss of designers' reputation, revealing that designer to be a charlatan. to develop compelling justifications for something that will happen in the future of human actors (stakeholders) is a totally different kind of effort than finding demonstrably valid explanations through scientific research.



you say there is all kinds of research. true enough. i invite anyone who talks of design research as if it would be clear to everyone what it entails to describe a set of operations (not a list of attributes such as being honest, careful and exhaustive) that a design researcher would have to engage in order to successfully apply for a grant to undertake that research. in scientific research such requirements are known and practiced successfully. if you want to help the reputation of design, this is where we have to be clear.



klaus        



-----Original Message-----

From: Ken Friedman [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 

Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 12:49 AM

To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]

Subject: RE: The word "research"



Hi, Klaus, 



If you read my post, you'll see a somewhat different point to the point

that you attribute to me. It's clear that the morphology of the word

research indicates a formal structure comprised of a prefix “re” and

a word stem “search.” 



What I say is that morphology is not helpful here, because the prefix

“re” in the word “research” doesn't indicate the meanings you

attribute to it. 



Even though we were not there when the word was first used in English,

lexicographers have access to thousands of usage exemplars in context.

Based on this information, lexicographers have a reasonable idea of what

the word meant when it was first used, the meanings it has had across

the years since, and the meanings that it has in the present day.



Scientific research is only one form of research. I’d argue that

among the many research traditions, there are forms of future-oriented

research aimed at creating preferred states, that is, design research.

Ultimately, of course, we’ve got to find out whether we’ve actually

created a preferred state, and at that point, we look back, searching

again, to see if we’ve done what we set out to do. But before we’ve

done it, our research is future oriented. 



The other day, I mentioned a rich range of broad categories of

research: theoretical, empirical, conceptual, positive, descriptive but

not positivistic, normative, mathematical, logical, philosophical,

historical, textual, exegetical, hermeneutic, interpretive,

phenomenological. Some flavors of these require looking back, others

looking forward, some both. Some also explore the present -- though, as

Augustine noted, the present becomes the past at just about the moment

we understand it to be here. Research in the present is therefore only

roughly present, but it remains distinct from a defined past.



The formal structure of the word “research” show two syllables,

“re” and “search.” No question about it. I have not disputed

that fact.



What I dispute is the meaning of the prefix “re” in the structure

of this specific word. If you look up the prefix “re” in

Webster’s, you’ll find that in this word, it does not form the

same kind of word as the many words in which “re” means “again.”

That is why the word “research” does not appear on the list of words

formed when the prefix “re” has the meanings you attribute to it.



I agree with much of what you’ve written in your reply, and I also

agree that the word “research” has the morphology you describe.

Where I disagree is in the meaning you attribute to the prefix "re" in

this specific word.



In the word “research,” the morphology of the word is irrelevant to

the meanings you attribute to it. On this, Webster’s provides the

evidence of a massive list of words that do take the meaning you

attribute. The word “research” is not among them. 



The reason I continue to struggle with this is that you continue to

respond with objections and counter-arguments. It would be irresponsible

of me not to substantiate my position. If you offer an argument that

leads me to change my view, I will change my view and say so.



Yours,



Ken



 

Klaus Krippendorff wrote:



--snip--



i don't know why you are so insistent that morphologically,

“research” does not consist of the prefix “re” and the word

stem “search.” you said that the english “research” comes from

the french “recherche” which my dictionary breaks down into the very

same two components “re-cherche,” searching repeatedly.



--snip--