I agree with David. A definition serves a need.
I explicitly asked my phd advisor "what earns a doctorate." he said, "an original contribution to human knowledge."
Research was the systematic pursuit of that knowledge.
The question we might be circling here is actually "what kind of knowledge" is of value to what pursuits.
Derek
- Quick note from Derek's iPod
On Jun 16, 2011, at 3:01, David Sless <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Whatever definition you think is best must always depend on context in which you use it.
>
> In this case, the context is doing a phd. So the test of whether or not something is research is whether one can get a phd by doing it.
>
> We don't normally give clinicians phd's for running blood tests for their patients. However, we might give a clinician a phd for finding some new pattern of diagnosis or method of testing blood that leads to different clinical outcomes.
>
> I would be reluctant to give a phd to someone who did, say, usability 'research' as part of a design project. But I think you might get a phd if you contributed to our knowledge and practice, answering some aspect of the questions I asked in my prior posts.
>
> I hope this answers your question, Keith, if in a roundabout way.
>
> David
> --
>
>
> blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
> web: http://www.communication.org.au
>
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> CEO • Communication Research Institute •
> • helping people communicate with people •
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
> Skype: davidsless
>
> 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
|