HOME | CURRENT | ARCHIVES | FORUM Research World, Volume 2, 2005 Online Version

Issues covered: generic capabilities of researchers; research as unfinished story; convergence/ divergence of Research output; changing meaning of Research Environment; traditional model of research; new models of research; research quality; observational closure; coordination

The seminar started off with an informal discussion on how basic concepts of research (such as model, theory, process, system, object, knowledge, etc.) can be systematically analysed in the present forum. The Institute's research oriented courses were highlighted; so was the need for extensive reading and study of these issues that should go hand in hand with higher level discussions such as the one intended for the current session. This was exactly what transpired in this seminar as indicated below.

The above preliminary remarks led to an interesting analogy of the research process with that of physical exercise. The fitness that results from a pursuit of any form of exercise increases the general ability of the person to engage in other forms of exercise as well. This in turn led to the observation that research is a continual, ongoing activity. The interesting example of an "unfinished story" illustrates this point more clearly.

The understanding of what is meant by "research environment" is also changing. Here the shift is from "the community of researchers" to a more inclusive, wider environment where "users" of the research output are increasingly becoming a part of the research environment.

The output of any research activity either converges (by meeting the expectations through continued improvement) or diverges (by frustrating expectations despite continued attempts at improvement) leading to a collapse of the model. So the flexibility and improvability of research output becomes indicators of its value. However in this context it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of "progress" and convergence.

Dr. Dash spoke about the basic components of the traditional approach to research. These are: Observation, Process, and Output. The output generates newer observations giving rise to the looping, and iterating process of research as discussed above. The term Observation here possesses a wider meaning than its common usage and embraces forms of data gathering that includes reports, self-reports, stories etc. These are processed in such a way that the output is independent, self-justifiable and needing no further external support for its validity. The output is deemed to be of importance to some community whether this is one of practitioners, the research community or any one else. However, this model is facing increasing challenges, leading to the following questions:

* What exactly is observation? What can limit it?
* What about the fact that this type of a cycle happens in everyday life unlabelled as research?
* What about the change in the research environment? How does one handle issues like change in expectations?

Newer models might be helpful in confronting some of these issues more effectively. One model that emerged during the course of the discussion had the following components:

* Learning to walk: The stage of initiation into the research process and systems
* Evaluation: Evaluation of observations made
* Abstraction? Theory: The findings of the research
* Politics of Control: Users: The process of influencing research especially, the selection of the research question

A more general model (from Gerard de Zeeuw):

* Inputs: The starting points that could range from stories to sounds
* Comparison: The process of analyzing the inputs based on some criteria
* Criteria: The basis of comparison
* Language: The vocabulary and combination rules (grammar) of research
* Public: Those who have a stake in the outcome of the research

The question of quality in research is an extremely difficult concept to address. One way of looking at this would be through a progressive approach that examines the process of research one layer at a time. Here attempts are made to distinguish between research and non-research first and good research and bad research next and so on progressively.

One of the most important ways of ensuring that we have not "fooled ourselves" is by verifying whether the results of the research stand the test of replication or not. In other words they should be observable by anyone who wished to ascertain the correctness of their conclusions. Now, if results are observable, the inputs and methods used for analyzing them should also be observable. This leads us to an important attribute of research known as "observational closure."

Further, the fact that what is observed and what are considered observable are social constructs prompts us to address the question of "coordination of observations." This can only be carried forward if further issues dealing with "coordination of communications" and "coordination of activities" are also examined. Proceeding on these lines, the idea of research seems to be closely related to the idea of improving coordination in different domains.


Reported by Jacob D. Vakkayil, with inputs from D. P. Dash.


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