Dear Eduardo,
In my view, we can't simplify the meta-narrative of research to a list
of two categories. The purpose of an articulate description of the
research meta-narrative is to inform researchers and research students
what they must specifically consider their discussions and explanations.
It's true that these nine forms of communication are discussions and
explanations, but they are discussions and explanations of a specific kind.
Someone might propose a different structure or a different series of processes,
but it is not enough simply to say, "discuss and explain."
Einstein used to say that we should make everything as simple as possible,
but no simpler. Any meta-narrative of research requires a series of steps,
each with specific content. If the specific kinds of discussions or explanations
are missing, we'd have a discussion and explanation of some kind, but it would
not be a research meta-narrative
For me, the nine broad rubrics are these:
1. State the research problem, or the issue at the heart of our inquiry,
2. Discuss the knowledge in the field to date,
3. Discuss past attempts to examine or solve the problem,
4. Discuss our research methods and approach,
5. Compare possible alternative research methods,
6. Discuss the problems we encountered in our research,
7. Explain how we addressed those problems,
8. Explicitly contribute to the body of knowledge within the field,
9. State implications for future research.
It's likely that one could go into greater depth in any of these headings,
and I can imagine more than nine rubrics, but I can't see making this much
simpler or using fewer rubrics. For the research metanarrative, we require
necessary and sufficient discussion and explanation of specific kinds.
It is possible, for example, to discuss a project by presenting the results
without discussing our research methods. While do this in the abstract,
promising the full discussion to come, this is an abstract: it is insufficient
for a full research presentation. It is also possible to explain what we have
learned without specifically explaining our contribution to the body of
knowledge within the field. That's interesting to us, but it does not warrant
wider publication.
While most of these nine items could be classified as discussion or
explanation, reducing a descriptive list such as this to two words would miss
the point. Poetry, literature, and myth discuss and explain, but they do not
constitute research precisely because of what they do not do.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design
Fluxus and the Essential Questions of Life | University of Chicago Press | http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?isbn=9780226033594
>>> Eduardo Corte Real <[log in to unmask]> 6/20/2011 8:34 PM >>>
--snip--
[quoting KF] Thus we require the meta-narrative of research.
The meta-narrative of research explains the thought and action
that took us from an initial question, puzzle, or problem, to the
final published result. The elements of the meta-narrative generally
require us to:
[list of 9 items]
[Eduardo proposes]
Can we simplify (group) these elements into three categories:
Discussions (I include comparisons in discussions), Explanations and
Stating? And, if you allow me, can I include the stating in the
Explanations and therefore talk about just two categories for research
meta-narrative: Discussions and Explanations.
--snip--
|