Hello Don and Fil
Don: Interresting but i think you play a little trick here. AR is conducted at many Universities and in research environments. Well... I think i will stick to pre-science from now on :) Would you consider AR to be acceptable for the larger domain of knowledge production, and maybe this is a better term than insisting on the term science? If accepting the terminology, and since you use the term pre-science, do you think that all knowledge production eventually will become science or do you think that certain types of knowledge production will rest outside of your boundary of science because of principle issues like the problem of the unique, chaos phenomena in complex systems or high rate of change?
Fil, I am not an expert eigther but i think you are probably right that these are gradients and there are no clear cuts. To my mind it just once again demonstrates that there are no easy answers, clear cut boundaries and static conceptions in and of the rich landscape of knowledge production (not to say science).
Best
Birger
________________________________________
Fra: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] på vegne av Don Norman [[log in to unmask]]
Sendt: 9. februar 2012 19:54
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: Yes, there is a (single) scientific method
Thanks, Birger.
You said that "in Action Research repeatability is not an issue or not
possible because community action situations are unique. At best one talks
of recoverability."
That's an excellent example to further the discussion. I would respond by
saying that Action Research is still not (yet) a candidate for the
scientific method. Repeatability is essential if one is to know what
actually led to any particular result.
This does not mean that Action Research is not important or necessary. it
means it is pre-scientific. That is not a value judgment -- it is a
definition.
That, at least, is my interpretation of what it means to be a scientist. As
usual, you or others may wish to disagree.
Don
|