HOME | CURRENT | ARCHIVES | FORUM Research World, Volume 3, 2006 Online Version

It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis everyday before breakfast. It keeps him [sic] young. (Lorenz, 1966, chap. 2)

Konrad Zacharias Lorenz (1903-1989) is regarded as one of the founders of modern ethology--the study of animal behaviour. He shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in physiology/medicine for discoveries in individual and social behaviour patterns, with two other early ethologists (“Konrad Lorenz,” 2006). I presume, the “morning exercise” he suggests for researchers is based on a compelling understanding of what keeps researchers youthful or what adds vitality to the research world.

If hypotheses are going to be discarded at that rate, they ought to be replenished fast enough--otherwise there would not be any left to discard after a while. Accordingly, this suggests two kinds of purposeful activities which must be carried out effectively in the research world: (a) hypothesis discarding and (b) hypothesis replenishment.

Readers familiar with the discussions on the nature of scientific developments (e.g., by the members of the Vienna Circle, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Peirce, Bhaskar, Von Glasersfeld, Latour, etc.) would recognise that discarding hypotheses is not easy at all. Even if disconfirming evidence is found, the research instrument may be faulty! If all equipments have been in order and all the measurements precise, the unlikelihood of that notwithstanding, one can always tweak the auxiliary hypotheses slightly, so that the core hypothesis remains unaffected. Besides, as in management research, there are numerous other excuses for not discarding a hypothesis even against glaring counter evidence, including this one: I do not value your evidence because I do not yet value your ability to produce evidence.

Now let’s come to hypothesis replenishment. Even this task, i.e., continuously coming up with ever new constructs, explanations, models, and languages, from whence to generate new hypotheses, turns out to be complicated. Again readers familiar with the hurdles before creative thinking, especially the stranglehold of familiar categories, will recognise that continuous hypothesis replenishment is not easy at all. This is truer in an institutional environment where the existing conservative bias tends to devalue the capacity for imagination--as it is in many fields of inquiry today. Thus, hypothesis replenishment at the desired rate appears to be a tough target.

Why does Lorenz’s model seem so tough, so unattainable? It appears the very forces that make hypothesis replenishment difficult, i.e., the rigid frameworks of thinking and various forms of conservatism are also the forces that make hypothesis discarding difficult. So, Lorenz’s call is really for protecting ourselves from such rigid frameworks and conservative bias.

We have been exploring an approach to do that since June 2003, in our Friday research seminars. Verbalised in Lorenzian style, the approach would translate into something like this: It is a good exercise for researchers to transgress a boundary at least once a week. It keeps them open-minded.

Different sorts of boundaries have been transgressed in the Research Training Seminar (RTS) series, which has now become an integral part of the doctoral-level Fellow Programme in Management (FPM) at XIMB.

A quick look at the topics discussed in the RTS series during this academic year 2005-2006, will indicate some of the boundaries which came up for transgression. Here are some illustrative examples:

(a) boundaries set by our preconceived notions of research (transgressed through a reconsideration of the problem of demarcation) (Report R3.1)

(b) boundaries set by analytical categories (transgressed through relational notions such as social network) (Report R3.3)

(c) boundaries set by technological determinism (transgressed through the approach of social construction of technology) (Report R3.5)

(d) boundaries set by our national identities (transgressed by focusing on the broader historical processes and the role of human agency) (Report R3.7)

(e) boundaries set by institutionalised cultures and conventions of research (transgressed by focusing on their meaningfulness to oneself) (Report R3.14)

(f) boundaries set by the practices of austere science and the everyday world (transgressed through the perspective of social studies of science) (Report R3.15)

(g) boundaries set by familiar dichotomies, such as thinking/doing (Report R3.8), qualitative/quantitative (Report R3.13), normal/abnormal (Report R3.16), etc. (transgressed in a multiplicity of ways, e.g., by recognising more inclusive frames, multidimensionality, continuums, evolutionary processes, forms of autonomy and inter-penetration, etc.)

In the spirit of transgression, we have invited seminar leaders with different disciplinary backgrounds. We have listened to them and engaged with their research perspective without imposing our judgements on what constitutes acceptable research. We have discovered some interesting new meanings people are giving to research by bringing their specific notions of discipline, scepticism, creativity, and attentiveness, etc., into many interesting fields of creative action. We have explored the forms of freedom produced in their work and the resulting creation of fresh perspectives and capacities.

Sometimes research becomes a process of assessing the reach and performance of a symbolic system (e.g., theories or models). Sometimes research is meant to simply bring to light suppressed voices, ignored phenomena, unique accomplishments, etc., perhaps in defiance of the prevailing symbolising traditions (such as disciplines, specialities, professional fields, or even established practices). But, what I have found the most interesting is how research can also be a part of an interactive process designed to produce an accumulating effect at the level of the interacting collective (which need not always be a research community). Of course, we remain open to other possibilities too--because we value transgression in research.

So, dear reader, as you thumb through [or click through] these pages, visualise the plastic boundaries you may have built around your research. It is my duty to caution you that some of those boundaries may soften as you engage with the discussions reported here.

Acknowledgement

I gratefully acknowledge Snigdha Pattnaik’s comments, which helped me articulate my ideas on transgressing boundaries more clearly.

References

Konrad Lorenz. (2006). Wikipedia. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Lorenz

Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression (M. K. Wilson, Trans.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1966. (Original work published in 1963)

March 18, 2006


Copyleft The article may be used freely, for a noncommercial purpose, as long as the original source is properly acknowledged.