 |
 |
I am not a great fan of definitions too. In this case I questioned not the definitive/descriptive side, but its implications for research. I would also reiterate "let there be many ways of creating data (not just collecting them as if they existed to be picked up)!" But it seems strange to me that many researchers design a survey questionnaire in a positivists frame of mind and than add a few open ended questions. Then, they would analyze the data with statistical tools and use the answers of the open ended questions to support their conclusions. As a result, we get something as the TV ads: "Mary, where did you buy this fabulous jacket? Oh, I shop only at Boston Store!" Many researchers see this as a way to integrate the best of quantitative and qualitative methodology. I would say, this is contemporary methodological eclecticism. That was my concern when I reacted to potential anarchistic implications of the descriptor "eclecticism" in the previous wording for interdisciplinary research. Regards, Lubomir Popov At 01:57 PM 10/2/2000 -0400, Klaus Krippendorff wrote: > >let there be methodological anarchism! let there be many ways of creating >data (not just collecting them as if they existed to be picked up)! let >there be an acknowledgement of multiple voices (and a second-order >understanding of these). > >klaus > >At 10:07 AM 10/2/00 -0400, Lubomir S. Popov wrote: > >>Good definition. The reason of my post is that I am concerned with >>methodological anarchism and particularly with the phenomena when data >>collected within the framework of one paradigm are interpreted from the >>position of another paradigm. I would like to warn that addopting the >>notion of "eclectism" is dangerous. In an eclectic compilation, there will >>be many problems associated with quality of data and interpretation stance >>because these issues are treated differently in different paradigms. >>Otherwise, the rest of the definition can hardly be disputed. >> >>Regards, >> >>Lubomir Popov >> >>At 11:15 PM 10/1/2000 -0700, Paul M. Gutherson wrote: >> >Hi all >> >I was recently at a one day conference on inter-disciplinary research >> >where a group of geographers and environmental researchers gave a >> >definition of interdisciplinary research (which incidentally they >> >arrived at after brainstorming sessions). Their definition was this: >> > >> >"It is eclectic and integrative. It uses different disciplines to solve >> >complex problems. It is holistic, fluid and adaptable." >> > >> >What an excellent definition of design research!! >> > >> >Paul >> > >> > >> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >P.M. Gutherson >> >[log in to unmask] >> >Tel: 01782 294669 >> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > __ >> > Advanced Research Institute / \ | | ) >> > School of Art & Design ____ \ __ / >> > Staffordshire University / \ | \ | >> > Stoke on Trent, ST4 2XN, UK _/ _\ _| _\ _| >> > >> > tel +44(0)1782 294602 fax +44(0)1782 294873 [log in to unmask] >> > >> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > >> > >> > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%