Ken,

On friendly note,

I just said, Hey guys, hey guys, ... you drive me crazy. Has anyone of you
heard about "going native?" The use of this term presupposes that, first, I
imply I accept empirical research; second, I imply that a person who is not
a member of a particular community can study it very productively; and
third, by warning about the dangers of going native, I implied that just
being a member of a particular community and having first hand experience
with its life doesn't guarantee that this person will produce research. The
idea that each member of the community is a great expert, researcher, and
theoretic on its life simply merges the distinction between and reflexivity
of science and the spontaneity of everyday existence.

I would not go in details because it will take ours. The discussion list
should not turn into Philosophy of Science 100. The list, as long as it is
promoted as a list of design Research society, is for upper level discorse,
may be 300-400 level. Let's stick to that. And if you prefer, let's
go higher.

I am really frustrated with the attempts by some people to prophanize
scholarship in order to easily access professional benefits. I would
say,  people who have no preparation and no idea what real scholarship is.
Again, we a talking here about science -- a social institution with its own
nature. If do not like this institution, create an alternative one. I made
at least a dozen posts about this, but strangely for me, nobody wants to
listen. And of course, in line with the essence of the democratic
tradition, I have only one vote and loose to majority. Congratulations with
the new science order. The way it goes, soon the most creative science will
be produced in the kindergarten (kids have unbelievable ideas), in the
asylums, and in the slams.

Until now I kept quiet. I can assure you that the whole notion of "science
to the people" is the worse kind of communism that you can create -- this
is intellectual communism!

This post is not meant for confrontation; it is only one more attempt to
say, let's look around and see what are we talking about.

With warmest feelings,

Lubomir


At 08:38 PM 8/23/2001 +0100, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Lubomir,
>
>Maria and Dick are right. Good research involves first-hand engagement.
>
>Faithful engagement with the obdurate nature of reality requires us
>to step up and look for ourselves. Careful and rigorous research
>requires attention to empirical reality as well as theoretical
>clarity.
>
>For some kinds of research, theory or axiomatic data may be enough.
>This is so for all fields based solely on logic. For certain kinds of
>natural science, analysis of data is enough. For others,
>meta-analysis of aggregate data suffices. Most science requires
>direct empirical observation.
>
>Research involving the world of living human beings requires human
>engagement. My mixed background includes work in human behavior,
>anthropology, and sociology. The notion of "going native" would not
>make sense to my professors. It would not have occurred to the great
>scholars on whose work we drew.
>
>The father of a distinguished anthropology professor made career
>choices that you would have probably called "going native." So did
>the professor. This gave them deep understanding and personal
>commitment. Their work had an intellectual edge and moral fiber
>because of it.
>
>Those who work across cultures gain everything by entering into the
>life of the cultures they study. As long as a scientist remains
>intellectually honest, willing to observe with a sense of reasonable
>realism, and able to report honestly what is seen, deep engagement
>brings added value to the work.
>
>Deep reading and robust theory construction are important to science.
>Deep reading is PART of the work, not the whole.
>
>In many areas of design research, our encounter with the physical
>world provides the decisive information we require for sound findings.
>
>Great theorists and first-rate methodologists insist on direct
>engagement. Herbert Blumer (1969: 21-22) writes, "an empirical
>science presupposes the existence of an empirical world. Such an
>empirical world exists as something available to us for observation,
>study, and analysis. It stands over against the scientific observer,
>with a charter that has to be dug out and established through
>observation, study, and analysis. This empirical world must forever
>be the central point of concern. It is the point of departure and the
>point of return in the case of empirical science. It is the testing
>ground for any assertions made about the empirical world. 'Reality'
>for empirical science exists only in the empirical world. Can be
>sought only there, and can be verified only there."
>
>In every field of science that engages human beings, those who
>interact with and learn from human subjects do better work than those
>who affect inappropriate distance. Human beings are "subjects of
>research" rather than "objects of inquiry" because each human being
>is an independent and free agent. Each is the subject and center of
>his or her own life.
>
>To learn what independent subjects feel, know, believe, and do, we
>must meet them and work with them. The nature and structure of the
>meeting depends on many issues. Whatever the specific issues, those
>who work in human-centered fields must work with human beings to do
>serious science.
>
>The far of "going native" does not worry me. Quite the contrary, I
>worry about the findings of scientists who avoid human beings for
>fear of "going native,"
>
>Euclid, Euler, and Einstein could work without human contact.
>
>Bateson, Maslow, Senge, or Schon could not.
>
>-- Ken Friedman
>
>
>Reference
>
>Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and
>Method. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.