Dear Ken,
You misunderstood me. I don't want to reduce anything to whatever.
What I was asking your permission to say was an expression of the kind:
"We can divide the nine broad rubrics of research meta-narrative in two
types: Discussions and Explanations".
Best,
Eduardo
On 20-06-2011 12:08, Ken Friedman wrote:
> 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--
>
|