Dear Fil,
I'm cool with this approach - such might be done within a clinical setting, but it is a distinctly different behaviour and hence it might be called "research within clinical practice". My point is that very little work done within the clinical/workshop/studio is a systematic investigation.
cheers
keith
>>> "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> 06/16/11 1:27 AM >>>
Keith et al,
I'd say of you're remark below that if the clinical practice is such
that it is a "systematic investigation into and study of materials and
sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions," then
it's *also* research. Why can't it be both? (Just curious)
Cheers.
Fil
2011/6/15 Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear David,
>
> I agree with your basic assessment of Don's account and I agree with the direction of your own account.
>
> However, I'm not sure how any of the examples you provide would count as research as opposed to clinical practice?
>
> Most university "research" consists of people applying known methods to known materials looking for slightly different outcomes. This I would call clinical practice.
>
> Sometimes what happens is quality control (testing systems, checking outcomes, benchmarking, calibrating). This I call tinkering.
>
> Innovation is not research, no matter how radical it might seem. (And, in passing, watches were always emotional objects, indeed, if we accept that identity carries and is carried by an affect, then watches were more emotional in their origin than they are in the age of Swatches - Swatches are post-modern feeling things.)
>
> So, should we start looking for what research is? Or, have we covered this ground many many times before? I find myself dancing.
>
> cheers
>
> keith
>
>
|