 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Research Training Seminars (Current) XIMB FPM Leaflet Seminar Reports 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 | | Research World, Vol. 3, 2006 Research Training Seminars at XIMB: 2005-2006 [Foreword] Transgressing Boundaries!
http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.1 D. P. Dash, XIMB (dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) Guides: (i) Dash, D. P. (2002). Improvement of co-ordination: Rescripting research for multi-agent environments. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19(2), 115-121. (ii) Science and pseudoscience [Transcript]. (n.d.). Retrieved 24 Jun 2005, from http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscienceTranscript.htm (iii) Zeeuw, G. de. (1995). Values, science, and the quest for demarcation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 12(1), 15-25. This was the opening research training seminar for the academic year 2005-2006. In this seminar, we sought to characterise research and discuss its demarcation from other types of activity. During the discussion, various notions related to research were explored, namely history of science, transferable knowledge, adequacy, acceptability, verifiability, falsifiability, methodological core, paradigm shift, narratives, conventions, etc. By the end of the seminar, there were more questions than answers. More importantly, there was also recognition that research is an evolving practice--the choices we make today can influence its course in the future. There was also the realisation that knowledge is constituted and expressed in narrative conventions, which can be designed as per the requirements of a particular field or discipline. The discussions started with the seminar leader making a brief opening remark about the long tradition of thinking on the nature of knowledge, research, and science. Historically speaking, epochal periods can be identified that witnessed significant changes in the human quest for knowledge, giving birth to new avenues of inquiry as well as corresponding institutional orders that sustained those avenues of inquiry. One such avenue of inquiry is modern science that achieved its distinctive expression in the seventeenth century. The rising prestige of science as an avenue of inquiry drew people and resources into its fold and it grew as a collective enterprise, despite resistance from different quarters--for examples, the powerful social authorities. Simultaneously, it also led to questionable developments such as the emergence of what were viewed as fake sciences, introduction of ideological control over scientific work, etc. It triggered some thinkers to pose the "problem of demarcation," i.e., a search for the defining characteristics of science. In the twentieth century, this search has been led by writers such as Bertrand Russell, Rudolph Carnap, Carl Hempel, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, etc. In order to delve into the issues of demarcation, we started with the question: What is research? Each time this question is posed in these seminars, it directs us towards a multitude of issues relevant to improving research quality. This time too, it led to an interesting variety of answers and new questions. No unique answer could be arrived at. It appeared, different types of activity carried out in different contexts have been labelled as research, e.g., scientific research, applied research, creative research, etc. It was not clear, what would make these distinguishable as research--the actions of researchers (or scientists), their approach and method, their motivation, their commitments, or their results? Many of these could also be part of everyday life. The quest for that which makes research a distinctive enterprise seemed to be rather open-ended--subject to further analysis and review. In this discussion, different categories of research were mentioned: (i) observational, (ii) descriptive, (iii) explanatory, (iv) evaluative, etc. Some notions of quality (e.g., "observational adequacy," "explanatory adequacy," etc.) were said to be associated with these. It appeared, different types of convention have evolved in different domains of research, along with certain criteria to assess the quality and acceptability of the results. Such criteria appear to be relative to the context in which these are developed and the purpose for which these are used. Therefore, our search for the distinctiveness of research can be widened to examine various other issues. Attention was then diverted to another set of issues, by asking the question: What is knowledge? Again a range of meanings entered into the discussion. Knowledge was spoken of in terms of "organised information," "accepted belief," "perceived reality," etc. At this point, a distinction was introduced between knowledge as expressed in the scriptures and knowledge as expressed by individuals, referring to the historical development of science, art, and literature through the Renaissance in Europe (fourteenth to sixteenth century). Of course, other types of distinction referring to other historical contexts would also be possible, e.g., knowledge pertaining to an eternal order (i.e., sacred knowledge) versus the knowledge attached to everyday life (i.e., profane knowledge). Such distinctions point to the historically changing criteria of acceptance, whereby different forms of knowledge emerge by contesting the established notions of "acceptability" and initiating alternative ones. The discussions moved on to focus on the issues concerning scientific knowledge, i.e., the type of knowledge that would have sufficient inherent strength and would not depend on the approval from any powerful social authority--sacred or otherwise. Interesting threads on this can be found in the philosophical literature that examines the remarkable success of science as an avenue of inquiry (or as a process of knowing). Glimpses of different aspects of this literature constituted much of what was discussed in the seminar. This included the earlier criterion of "conclusive verifiability" and the later criterion of "falsifiability" as competing notions to help demarcate scientific statements from other types of statement. Despite the logical lucidity of the criterion of "falsifiability," subsequent considerations in the literature have pointed out two types of difficulty: (i) since no theory is ever put to test all by itself, but only in conjunction with various assumptions, conditions, instruments, etc., even if a disconfirming instance were found, it would not necessarily falsify the theory (because the assumptions could be wrong or the instruments could be defective!); and (ii) actual scientists (or researchers) do not appear to easily give up their theories against disconfirming evidence--they might treat such evidence as "anomaly" (as pointed out by Kuhn) or just alter an "auxiliary hypothesis" but leave the "methodological core" in tact (as pointed out by Lakatos). There was some discussion on the insights of Kuhn and Lakatos on the problem of demarcation. The notions of "paradigm shift" (Kuhn) and "progressive research programme" (Lakatos) were mentioned, although not discussed in detail. Upon this backdrop, the topic of contemporary research in applied disciplines, such as management, was then taken up in the seminar. One important element of this context of research is the presence of specific "users." This requires that the results of research should not lose their quality when transferred to a new "context of use." This seems to bring to the fore another facet of the problem of demarcation, i.e., the "transferability" of research results. Accordingly, research results are expected to be transferable to contexts other than where they were first developed. This does relate to the notion of "generalisability." It requires that results should be transferable without loss of quality. This turns out to be a complex requirement, involving issues of "research design." De Zeeuw's (1995) work on this subject indicates that there may not be any unique solution to the problem of demarcation, considering the never-ending extensions to the topics and issues that enter into the sphere of research practice. He has set out "four puzzles" of demarcation, whose resolution can yield particular demarcations (i.e., particular images of science or research) depending upon the type of resolution adopted. The four puzzles are with respect to the following: (i) what inputs would enter into the research process, (ii) how these inputs would be synthesised, (iii) what type of logical distinction would separate the inputs from the results of the synthesis, and (iv) how transferable results would be constituted from the synthesis. The process of scientific development indicates that it creates opportunities for people (i.e., those who participate in it) to drop out from the process, by either "believing" in some of its results or "not believing," i.e., not trusting, some of its results. This was articulated in "A Story of Astronomy," read out from Dash (2002). It suggested that pursuing research requires the "spirit of inquiry" and also the will to reorganise the process of inquiry from time to time, as the existing processes lead us to blind alleys of one kind or another. While undertaking such reorganisation, one requirement would be to take into account the issue of demarcation. This requires formulations such as De Zeeuw's, which can guide the process of developing alternative reorganisations of research. A proposal towards one such reorganisation of research was presented by the seminar leader (Dash, 2002). It consisted of the following characterisation of the research process: (i) some participants are able to participate in a narrative (ii) they can recognise when a transferable result is achieved (iii) the result can be transferred to some specified public (iv) the narrative is capable of tracking how the transferred result fares This indicated a notion of research wherein the researchers are aware of the context of use and remain accountable for the consequences of transferring research results. This necessitates extensions to classical scientific research, which might be a topic for our future seminars. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) J Mukherjee (XIMB Faculty, jaydeep[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) Manideepa Patnaik (IBAT Faculty, manideepa[at]ibat.ac.in) Niraj Kumar (XIMB Faculty, niraj[at]ximb.ac.in) S Dubey (RM-I Student, XIMB, u305045[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by D. P. Dash, based on the notes and reports by Adwaita Govind Menon, CD Kuruvilla, and Sumant Dubey. (8 July 2005, Ratha Yatra) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.2 D. P. Dash (dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in), Jaydeep Mukherjee (jaydeep[at]ximb.ac.in), Jacob D. Vakkayil (u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) The participants in the seminar attempted to review the research training process at XIMB. The focus of the review was the Research Training Seminar (RTS) series at XIMB and the related activities. The following questions came up for discussion: (i) How do we understand "research training"? (ii) What is the perspective associated with this seminar series? (iii) What is the relevance of writing the seminar reports? Deliberating on these questions made it possible for the regular participants in this series to articulate their own views, experiences, and suggestions to enhance this activity. It also helped the new participants gain an overall understanding of these seminars and recognise areas where additional effort needs to be spent in order to make the research training process more meaningful for them. (i) How do we understand research training? Research training is a multifunctional exercise at XIMB. It aids personal learning for the participants and facilitates exchange of ideas in a trans-disciplinary context. It seeks to create a conducive environment for nurturing potential thoughts that could emerge to become strong research subjects. Research training is a participatory effort to gain a better understanding of research as a process and the associated practices. (ii) What is the perspective associated with this seminar series? The RTS series is a forum for doctoral students to subject themselves to research discussions. The series aims to create awareness among the participants regarding the academic requirements of doctoral study. It could be treated as a corrective exercise to fine-tune the analytical and presentation skills of a scholar. The beauty of the series lies in the flexibility, which attempts to address virtually any research related query from the participants. It seeks to benefit the research community by presenting alternative ways to think about different topics. The RTS series attracts participation chiefly from research scholars and faculty-members from within and outside the Institute. An orientation towards research, reflective practice, and innovation helps in effective participation. Some postgraduate students have also occasionally contributed to the discussions. The variety of interests and backgrounds represented in these seminars has expanded the breadth of the discussions and produced significant learning for the participants. The vibrancy and depth of these discussions were more often the result of keen and generous participation by those involved. Although the RTS series has attracted a wide variety of topics, the discussions have revolved around the central theme of "research." The diverse topics discussed have illuminated this central theme from different disciplinary and methodological angles. Doctoral education was described as "academic infancy" where one develops a variety of required skills. The need to have a planning horizon beyond the immediate doctoral project was emphasised. Often there is a requirement to challenge existing modes of thinking and acting. The image of the researcher as a 'thought leader" aptly captures this idea. Such thought leadership is required in the practice of research too. Traditional research methods have consistently failed to generate high quality results in a number of applied fields including Management. Many researchers treat research as a programmed activity involving a definite set of techniques. Some tools and techniques like those involved in quantitative data analysis serve as a research language. Such languages enable cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural conversations. Researchers need to be equipped with more such research languages. (iii) What is the relevance of writing the seminar reports? RTS reports not merely chronicles the discussions but also provide an opportunity to reflect on the ideas discussed. Academic writing is an important activity for any researcher. Through a well-structured reporting process, the RTS series provides opportunities for honing writing skills. The process of report writing also equips reporters with opportunities to seek and respond to feedback from others. There are a number of areas where the reporter can exercise his/her choice, for example one can structure and interpret discussions in a seminar and elaborate and highlight certain interesting threads. Most reporters have a set of target readers in mind. This is another area where a choice can be exercised. It could be summarised that research-training seminars attempt to provide a conceptual framework for a researcher to pursue his/her interest. This multidimensional activity might emerge as a catalyst for potential researchers. RTS aims to grow as a forum for discussion in understanding the practice of research. Having stated this, the onus is on the participants to maximize their learning from the opportunities provided. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) J Mukherjee (XIMB Faculty, jaydeep[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) MN Tripathy (XIMB Faculty, mnt[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash, Jacob D. Vakkayil, and Jaydeep Mukherjee. (16 July 2005) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.3 Prasad Balkundi, SUNY Buffalo, USA (bprasad95[at]yahoo.com) PART 1 Social network analysis (SNA) is a relatively new approach in management. Any human network with two or more nodes could be called a social network. The pattern of interaction in the network has implications for the nodes and for the network as a whole. The seminar leader affirmed Martin Kilduff’s view that one paradigm can support another and hoped that the social network paradigm could supplement the other paradigms in organisational and management research. A new paradigm brings with itself a new language and a new set of researchers who tend to specialise in some field. The seminar leader sought to explore the following questions during the course of discussions. What exactly is social network analysis? How is it different from the other approaches in the field of organisational behaviour? Is it a metaphor or theory? How is it different from traditional research? An example of SNA was presented. It was seen that the pattern of interaction led to the formation of power structures. Giving examples of “stars” and “brokers” in the network, the seminar leader emphasised the need to align the formal structure with the informal network in an organisation, to increase its performance. It was also seen that the size of the network could affect its structure. SNA has applications in diverse fields such as epidemiology (HIV control), rural sociology (diffusion of hybrid corn), and strategy (terrorist networks). Through SNA, one aims to predict the behaviour of the nodes and the network. In organisations, there are informal links not captured by the formal organisational structure. The more the informal links and the formal structures align, the higher is the probability of better organisational performance. SNA analysts assume that social interaction drives individual behaviour while it is the other way round for researchers who follow the psychological approach. Using standard statistical tools, such as regression, poses a difficulty for SNA. The difficulty arises because of interdependence of variables. Strictly dependent and independent variables are difficult to specify in a social network, because everything seems to depend on everything else. Some specialised methods such as quadratic assimilation procedure have been developed to deal with this problem. But, what is more common in SNA is the use of softwares based on "graph theory" from mathematics, such as the UCINET software. Models drawn from physics and mathematics are increasingly influencing social network analysis. Surveys are commonly used to collect network data, but network surveys cannot be anonymous. Therefore, there is a constant obligation not to harm the respondents. Network surveys require a high rate of response, say around 80%. The roots of SNA could be traced back to the work of J. L. Moreno (1889-1974) [who founded The American Society of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama (ASGPP), 1942, see http://www.asgpp.org/]. Moreno's work at a young women's penitentiary was discussed. There were cases of repeated violence within a penitentiary. Moreno studied the friendship network among the inmates, by focusing on who they had lunch with, etc. Based on his observations, Moreno suggested a restructuring of the dormitories and reorganising the environment in order to avoid frequent interaction among members who hated each other. It considerably reduced the cases of violence in the penitentiary. PART 2 The seminar leader shared his experiences as a doctoral student. He gave valuable insights on the doctoral programme at The Pennsylvania State University, USA (http://www.psu.edu/). He talked about choosing a topic for research, issues regarding the choice of sample, importance of publishing papers, and the structure of the doctoral programme as a whole. His dissertation asked the question: Why are some leaders more influential than others? He used SNA as a method for his research. He concluded that networks drive charismatic actions, which transform into performance and that leadership arises out of expectations and perception of subordinates. The seminar leader advised doctoral students to work on a topic different from the principal interests of their advisors/ guides to create an identity of their own. Care should be taken while choosing the topic for dissertation, for research has to be interesting and relevant for it to make an impact. It could be noted that individual choices should be well considered because they have a bearing on the rest of one’s career. Publication in “quality journals” is an indicator of the quality of the doctoral work. This emphasises the need for good academic writing where each paragraph needs to be cogent and each sentence must reflect the progressive development of thought. Researchers should aim to make their doctoral studies a rewarding experience. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) BB Mohanty (Faculty, PM & IR, Utkal University, bbmohanty[at]hotmail.com) BK Patel (PGP-I, XIMB, u105014[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) JM Das (XIMB Faculty, jmdas[at]ximb.ac.in) Khirod Pattnaik (Learning Associates, khirodp[at]yahoo.com) Krishnapriya (Research Student, Utkal Univ., priya_kri69[at]yahoo.co.in) Niraj Kumar (XIMB Faculty, niraj[at]ximb.ac.in) P Mohanty (Faculty, WALMI, Dept. of WR, Govt. of Orissa) S Dubey (RM-I, XIMB, u305045[at]ximb.ac.in) S Pattnaik (XIMB Faculty, snigdha[at]ximb.ac.in) S Peppin (XIMB Faculty, peppin[at]ximb.ac.in) S Prasad (XIMB Faculty, shambu[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash, Jacob D. Vakkayil, and CD Kuruvilla (31 July 2005) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.4 Partha S. Mohapatra, Morgan State University, USA (pmoha2[at]uky.edu) Doctoral scholars often look up to those who have completed their doctoral studies for guidance and direction. The seminar focused on the experiences of the seminar leader, alumnus of XIMB, who has just completed his doctoral studies successfully. An overview of the doctoral process at the Decision Sciences and Information Systems department of the University of Kentucky was presented first. The process has two stages. The initial stage consists of two years of course work, followed by a comprehensive examination. Students can opt for courses even from other departments in the university. There are three categories of doctoral level courses, i.e., (a) research methods, (b) statistics, and (c) seminar courses. The seminar courses involve self-study and presentation to the class. Typically the instructor provides a set of readings (say six to eight journal articles on a particular topic) to a group of students. The students are expected to make a presentation to the whole class on the topic. There is also a component known as "dissertation study," in which past dissertations are analyzed. Occasionally, data from these studies are re-analyzed to see if different conclusions could be drawn. The seminar leader opined that the course work was an important stage in the doctoral process. He cited specific examples of courses, such as the one titled Measurements, which were of considerable value to him. There are many considerations that go in to the selection of a doctoral advisor. It is important that the guide's research interests match that of the doctoral student. One way to assess a potential guide is to attend a course conducted by him/her. His/her ability to share quality time and give constructive feedback would need careful attention. While choosing advisory committee members, one needs to look for specialists in areas connected with the research topic. Many guides prefer that their interactions with the researcher be scheduled and planned meticulously. During the initial stages of the dissertation, while undertaking literature review, one could delineate thoughts into one-page notes and later expand those into chapters. Researchers need to focus on their writing skills. The need to adhere to established styles such as APA Style was stressed upon. The usefulness of softwares, such as EndNote, that could aid the writing process was indicated. The usefulness of the university's Writing Center was acknowledged. The dissertation proposal is submitted to the advisory committee for approval. The proposal is submitted one month before the final presentation is made. Presentation of the proposal at a conference would also generate valuable and timely feedback. The researcher is expected to adhere to the proposal and not make major changes after its approval by the committee. Once the data collection and analysis are done, the advisor would give the green signal to proceed to the thesis defense stage. The seminar leader made an observation that doctoral students need to help and support each other during this process. Unwillingness to share knowledge or resorting to unhealthy competition are not in consonance with the culture of research. There was some discussion on defining one's research topic in terms of "domains" and "concepts." The researcher employs a set of concepts in order to study a topic related to some domain. The process should enrich the domain and further refine the concepts as well. The seminar was attended by: B Mohanty (XIMB Faculty, brajaraj[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) GK Nayak (XIMB Faculty, gopal[at]ximb.ac.in) Ibha Kumar (XIMB Faculty, ibha[at]ximb.ac.in) J Mukherjee (XIMB Faculty, jaydeep[at]ximb.ac.in) Rajeev Roy (Part-time Faculty, XIMB, royrajeev[at]gmail.com) Hemanta Ranjan Deo (Visitor, hemant12deo[at]yahoo.co.in) AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB,u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) Srikant Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by CD Kuruvilla, with inputs from JD Vakkayil and AG Menon. (30 July 2005) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.5 Wiebe E. Bijker, Faculty of Arts and Culture, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands (W.Bijker[at]TSS.unimaas.nl) Guide: Bijker, W. E. (2001). Social construction of technology. In N. J. Smelser, P. B. Baltes, (Eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 15522-15527). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Science, technology and society (STS) studies was born as a movement in the 1970s. It gained prominence in the academic world during the next decade when it was applied to studies of policy issues, innovation management, and different forms of democracy. In the 1980s, it established itself as a discipline which was characterised by the introduction of new courses in the university, increase in number of publications, appointment of faculties, and so on. The movement was strong in the UK, USA, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries. It generated concerns regarding the social responsibility of scientists, risks involving nuclear energy and nuclear arms, and environmental pollution. The seminar leader attempted to project the evolution of STS as two interwoven processes: # From politics into academia # Into the technological culture Although it grew out of the political interests against nuclear proliferation and in favour of social responsibility of science and technology, STS got nourishment in the academia. It did gather institutional success, but its failure in the world outside led to the frustration of its propagators. The seminar leader was of the opinion that in the present context STS is finding its way back into politics. Discussing STS as a field of research, the seminar leader stated that there could be two orientations--one ordered by problems such as environmental problems, disarmament, globalisation, and so on, and the other ordered by perspectives such as impact focus, sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) focus and various theory specific focuses. These could be compared to defining research in terms of practical domains (problem specific) or in terms of concepts (approach or theory specific). Drawing from STS, SSK and history of technology, there emerged a new approach to studying science and technology called social construction of technology (SCOT). In this approach the properties of scientific artefacts are studied as socially constructed rather than as intrinsic properties. During the 1970s the readings on the subject were scattered and the sociology of technology nonexistent. With the emergence of academic interests in the subject, the focus changed from the study of impact of technology on society to the study of development of technology itself. Initially the unit of analysis was the technological artefact. With the co-evolution of social and technical studies, the socio-technical ensemble and the technological culture have become the new units of analysis. The SCOT approach studies technology in society as a self-sustaining process involving many social groups. Interpretive flexibility is its core concept, which means freedom of interpretation of artefacts. It seeks to uncover the dynamics of and the values inherent in the artefacts. For example, different social groups looked at the bicycle as an artefact in the 1870s in different ways. The relevant social groups were bicycle producers, ordinary users, women users, and anti-cyclists. This gives the researcher a scope to demonstrate interpretive flexibility. Women viewed it as an unsafe machine, which entangled their skirts and led to frequent falls. Men considered it to be a machine which gave them a macho image and the power to impress women. Such interpretive flexibility diminishes over a period of time as some interpretations of the artefacts gain importance over the others and over a period of time one interpretation emerges from the whole process of social construction. The stabilisation of interpretations slowly brings in the closure of the concept. By closure, the seminar leader referred to the end point of a discordant process in which several interpretations (of the artefact) were competing for prominence. In order to facilitate a better understanding of the process of closure in SCOT, the concept of “technological frame” was introduced. A technological frame structures the interaction between the members of a social group and conditions their thoughts and actions. It is built up along with the interactions around the artefacts where the current practices lead to future practices. There was some discussion on the difference between the concept of technological frame and Kuhn’s idea of paradigm. One key difference is that paradigm considered scientific communities, while technological frame considered all socially relevant groups. It could be noted that in Kuhn’s idea of paradigm, one paradigm has no links with another paradigm. But, technological frames are overlapping considering the fact that one or more individuals can be part of multiple social groups and hence multiple technological frames. The proponents of the SCOT approach criticise technological determinism (TD). TD emphasises the following: # Technology develops autonomously # Technology determines the development of society This is a linear and one-dimensional approach to study technology in society. It suggests the non-existence of social and political interventions in the development of technology, which is unacceptable in SCOT. In SCOT, the evolution of technology and society happen together and the process of construction is continuous. Economics has also played a role in the evolution of science and technology. Neoclassical economics considered technology to be naïve, neutral, and exogenous. With the advent of innovation studies, evolutionary economics classified technology as endogenous and recognised the paradigms associated with it. SCOT identifies the potential of economic prosperity associated with a technology as an important issue in the interpretive contestation among various social groups. There is an obligation for technological culture to address the issues of development, vulnerability, and democracy. It needs to address the problems of poverty, health, and safety. Innovation and flexibility being embedded in technology, it needs to be used carefully lest it might turnout catastrophic for both human and society. The seminar leader proposed democracy as the only sustainable way to address these problems. The statement is open to debate owing to the fact that democracy is a complex phenomenon, which has several meanings. The seminar leader stated that he found himself in a strange situation. He led the SCOT movement and had been criticising TD and the scientists and engineers involved in it. Currently he has been involved in pleading for a new recognition of the key roles of science and technology in education, management, politics, and society. The seminar leader briefly discussed issues relating to doctoral education and highlighted the points where a student needs to exercise his/her judgement or caution. He stressed the need for doctoral students to have conceptual clarity. Concepts, per se, are influenced by or could influence other concepts, empirical methods, and choice of unit of analysis. In order to gain conceptual clarity, the student must attempt to analyse the meaning of concepts by reviewing various texts. He urged doctoral students to make conscious choices regarding the following: # What is the research question? # What is the unit of analysis? # Are the issues revolving between micro/meso/macro levels? # Is the topic interdisciplinary? # Have I attained the required level of technical expertise? # Where is the focus, on change or on stability? # Is the choice of subject biased? # Is empirical research properly guided by conceptual framework? # Is the choice of theory justified? # Has the dissertation been properly structured? Doctoral students need to realise the importance of conscious choices involved in doing research and own the responsibility for the choices they make. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) AKJR Nayak (XIMB Faculty, amar[at]ximb.ac.in) BS Pani (XIMB Visiting Faculty, bspani[at]nalcoindia.co.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) CS Prasad (XIMB Faculty, shambu[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) GK Nayak (XIMB Faculty, gopal[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) K Pattnaik (Learning Associates, khirodp[at]yahoo.com) MG Jomon (XIMB Faculty, joe[at]ximb.ac.in) N Mishra (Consultant, nimmi[at]lycos.com) R Roy (XIMB Faculty, royrajeev[at]gmail.com) S Dubey (RM-I, XIMB, u305045[at]ximb.ac.in) S Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) S Pattnaik (XIMB Faculty, snigdha[at]ximb.ac.in) S Peppin (XIMB Faculty, peppin[at]ximb.ac.in) SR Chakrabarti (XIMB Visiting Faculty) T Campo (Visitor, Mrs Bijker) WS William (XIMB Faculty, winfred[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash, Jacob D Vakkayil, and CD Kuruvilla (10 August 2005) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.6 D. P. Dash, XIMB (dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) [This was conducted as a workshop. A manuscript titled "Specification and Typology of Social Capital," submitted for publication in an international journal of management, was reviewed independently by the participants. All the reviews were then discussed, highlighting the qualities of scholarly writing and the expectations from a manuscript reviewer.] Academic writing is an important skill for a researcher. It is cultivated over a period of time, and is a vital tool for the researcher to communicate observations and findings. Academic writing usually involves a review (or refereeing) process. Reviewing manuscripts submitted to academic journals can be a way of learning about academic writing. The experience of reviewing a manuscript provides the researcher an insight into the requirements of high-quality academic writing and might help in benchmarking personal standards. The researcher needs to be cautious on one account. There is a likelihood of being influenced by a peer, guide, or a particular reviewer whose style of writing and approach appeals to the researcher. It is desirable for the researcher to become aware of any such influence. One may of course make a conscious effort to develop a unique writing or reviewing style of one's own. Learning the correct usage of words, punctuations, and other formal aspects of writing are also important for academic writing. The purpose of manuscript review is to help the author improve the quality of the manuscript. The task of a reviewer is to notice any flaws in the text, help the author realise it, and make constructive suggestions for rectifying the flaws. It is vital for the author to be open to feedback and criticism. The reviewer ought to adopt a positive and constructive approach. Pointing out flaws with care and humility facilitates the process of learning on the part of the author. Reviewers vary in approach. Some reviewers like to insert questions and observations at relevant points within the manuscript. Some others narrate their observations and comments more elaborately. Another approach is to write a summary of the manuscript before raising questions. From this, the author gets a glimpse of how the manuscript has been understood. This can itself be a very useful feedback. A reviewer is expected to be specific in pointing out flaws, providing the necessary supporting arguments. When a review suggests alternative ways for addressing the flaws/questions in the manuscript, it helps the author. The work of a reviewer is not merely to judge, but also to help the author develop the manuscript to publishable standard. A reviewer may or may not be from the same discipline as the author. The contributions of a reviewer from the same discipline would focus more on the substance of the manuscript. Such a reviewer may suggest additional literature references, theoretical views, empirical evidence, etc. A reviewer from a different disciplinary background may give special attention to the nature of the arguments and examine whether the conclusion logically follows from the arguments. The reviewer also needs to check whether there is a common logical thread running through the article. The conclusion might make sense in isolation, but what matters is the soundness of the arguments and evidences used in arriving at that conclusion. In the end, the reviewer comes up with a list of recommendations that are useful for the author and the editor. The process of manuscript review is fruitful when there is a proper flow of thought between the reviewer and the author. The focus of the exercise can be to add value to all the parties concerned. Publication of the manuscript is a recognition of the author’s scholarly contribution to the subject. The author has to consciously relate to the academic debates in the subject. The work needs to be original and should add value to the existing body of knowledge. Targeting a specific audience is a good practice in academic writing. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) I Sridhar (XIMB Faculty, sridhar[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) S Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash, Jacob D Vakkayil, and CD Kuruvilla (30 August 2005) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.7 Kittu Reddy, Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education, Pondicherry (kittu[at]auromail.net) The idea of world unity has been discussed in various fora. In the past, there have been many attempts to form organisations like the League of Nations and the United Nations, to further the cause of world peace and unity. The notion of bringing the world under a single governance system took a formal shape with colonisation. Napoleon had dreamt of a united world. His ambition and influence brought about the fall of many nations. He created a new form of government in France, reshaped the boundaries of Europe, and influenced revolutionaries and nationalists the world over during the period from 1796 to 1815. Such exploitative efforts at unity were usually countered by movements for independence. The victorious allied powers of World War I established the League of Nations. The League was ineffective in stopping the military aggression that led to World War II. The League ceased its work during the war and dissolved on April 18, 1946. The United Nations assumed its assets and carries on much of its work. But these attempts at uniting the world have not produced the anticipated results. The seminar leader proposed a plausible explanation for their failure. The explanation outlines three conditions that are necessary for sustainable unity within any social unit--in this case, the globe. (a) Primary allegiance to the largest unit, and not to any of the sub-units: The basic social unit of society is the family. Children grow up within the family, friends circle, and school. They develop a sense of nationality as they grow up and later develop a global feeling. In order to establish a sense of oneness with humanity one has to ensure primary loyalty to the biggest unit. (b) Equality: In order to sustain this unity, fundamental equality of all basic component units has to be achieved. The state has to ensure that every citizen is able to meet the basic needs of life. This is currently being attempted through reservation policies for the downtrodden. Every individual would then try to reach out to each other. (c) Freedom: Sustenance of individual freedom in a unified world order is vital. Every individual’s freedom has to be respected and ensured. Controls create barriers to growth. The growth of every individual could be brought about when every individual develops a sense of belonging to a united world. Is world unity inevitable? Globalisation is one of the prime forces shaping the contemporary world. Issues like pollution of the environment cannot be addressed from a local perspective anymore. The responsibilities of national governments are increasing. It has led to the need for global governance. In today’s world, terror, AIDS, and poverty represent the new face of globalisation. They have spread their wings far and wide. In order to overcome these evils, humanity will have to come together. It is logical to argue that nation states would be the sub-units in a united world structure. But is it possible that individuals could be the basic unit in a united world structure? The coming together of nations/individuals in an amicable manner will lead to a united world. However, economic and political foundations of today’s world do not easily allow this new structure to take shape. We need to search for a more effective model for world unity. An analysis of the history of evolution of the nation state reveals three phases in its formation. In the first phase, there is a sense of loose unity among the constituent components because of geographical proximity, religious affiliation, etc. In the second stage, the formation of a centralised state takes place through administrative, financial, and military mechanisms. During the third stage there is usually some revolt against such strictly centralised structures and a certain degree of decentralisation happens in response to this. This brings about stability of the nation state. There are indications today that we are well into the first stage mentioned above in the formation of a world entity. Many organisations have surpassed national affiliations and are addressing global concerns. Amnesty International strives to address the suffering of humanity. Green Peace has taken up the responsibility of protecting our global environment. Is it necessary to go through the second and third stages outlined above, while attempting to form a world state? What then may be the way forward? To address this question, Prof. Reddy spoke of Sri Aurobindo’s vision of spiritual universalism. Every individual needs to develop a sense of internationalism. This spirit should go beyond the realm of mental faculties and should engage the intuitive and spiritual faculties of the individual. This will help foster a sense of oneness among all members of humanity and bring about unity in the world. Concluding the seminar, the seminar leader spoke of the inevitability of world unity and challenged researchers to address the following issues: * Economic foundation of a new world order * Principles for governing a united world * Role of psychology in bringing out a harmonious world The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) C Shambu Prasad (XIMB Faculty, shambu[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) GK Nayak (XIMB Faculty, gopal[at]ximb.ac.in) I Chakrabarti (XIMB Faculty, indranil[at]ximb.ac.in) Ibha Kumar (XIMB Faculty, ibha[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) Krishnapriya (Research Student, Utkal Univ., priya_kri69[at]yahoo.co.in) Sheila R Chakrabarti (XIMB Visiting Faculty, indranil[at]ximb.ac.in) Srikanth Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) Sumant Dubey (Student, XIMB, u305045[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by CD Kuruvilla, with inputs from JD Vakkayil, AG Menon, and I Chakrabarti (6 October 2005). http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.8 Ananta Kumar Giri, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai (ananta[at]mids.ac.in) The seminar sought to focus on reflection and mobilisation as key elements of action research. In the process, different notions relating to development were discussed, such as self-reflection, multidimensional growth, responsibility, etc. The discussions highlighted the role of reflection and mobilisation in the process of development. Action research was presented as a relevant form of engagement in the context of development. In the course of the discussions, various questions were raised: What is the need for local or global approaches to development? How exactly does one classify local responsibility or global responsibility? What is the unit for responsibility? Could development mean problematising? What is the difference between deconstruction and reconstruction? The discussions started with the seminar leader making a brief opening remark about reflection. Reflection has often been understood as a purely isolated practice and an act of solitude. The seminar leader sought to differ by stating that reflection is a "mutually implicated process" that generates "resonance" in a given social context. By mutually implicated, he referred to the elements (people, processes) outside the individual that facilitate what goes on within the individual, and also vice versa. In practice, the possibility of reflection is enhanced when all the parties involved in some process help each other to understand themselves (quite like one holding up a mirror in front of another person). This reporter could relate the idea of reflection to the notion of "genidentity" in the research thinking of Kurt Lewin (http://www.psychcentral.com/psypsych/Genidentity), where we go beyond the absolute existence of an object or phenomenon to appreciate the existence of multiple entities over a period of time. An object or individual could exist in reality as multiple entities as it were the phases of the same object over a period of time. Two objects are not identical necessarily because they have the same properties in common, but may be because one has developed from the other. Reflection might include appreciation of the development history of various entities and processes. Reflection in the social context could refer to a self-sustained cycle of evaluation, action, and critical thinking wherein the entities could be functionally independent but mutually dependent for evolution. This follows a typical cycle of intervention in some real world system followed by the evaluation of its effects. Each functional entity goes about its function in a clinical way with no intervention whatsoever from other entities, but in order to achieve a group-level goal (social goal) the entities intervene in (or complement) each other. Development as a process could be studied in the light of the above. The word mobilisation could have different connotations. "Socio-political mobilisation" is driven by the idea of development and the need for new social imagination. "Socio-spiritual mobilisation" is driven by the need for good foundations for a satisfying life. "Reflective mobilisation of self" is driven by the idea of self-development. Mobilisations help us explore new avenues in the world of action. Mobilisation in any given context is governed by a host interrelated factors (social, cultural, political, etc.). Mobilisation could require new ways of thinking that emerges out of various practices of life. For example, political mobilisation is not only related to politics but also driven by cultural practices and social norms. In most contexts mobilisation could be multidimensional in nature and governed by several interwoven factors. Reflection and mobilisation are useful in studying the practice of development. The word development has a positive connotation in most contexts. The process of development is triggered by an act of intervention in the normal cycle of occurrences. It is a form of action research that aims to generate a "space for resonance" in the society. Resonance refers to a communicative process involving the triggering of dormant dimensions. An example of this was discussed in the light of the “bhakti-pheri” process in Swadhyay socio-spiritual movement as a form of intervention that aims at creation of public spaces and identification of links between them. Development can be studied through various frameworks. It could be interpreted as a relationship that facilitates multidimensional growth of self and others. It could also be interpreted as a notion of freedom. The French Revolution helps us study development in the framework of rights and the Industrial Revolution pictures development in the framework of justice. Frameworks of rights and justice have their own limitations and might not be able to sustain a full-fledged model of development. The inability to properly address the environmental challenges we face today could be an example of the inadequacies of the frameworks of rights and justice. It becomes critical to fit development to a framework that would privilege and promote sustainability. In this context, the relevance of studying development in a responsibility framework emerges. The issue of development being a global responsibility was debated at length. The notions of local and global responsibilities were compared and the discussions failed to arrive at a consensual classification of responsibility as global or local. The same responsibility could be local and global as well in different contexts and to different people. A lot of contemporary development thinkers have employed the analytical device of deconstruction to expose the foundational inadequacies of development practice. In this, development is criticalled examined by unbundling the constituent constructs and questioning the assumptions and interpretations of development. This means that the process of development itself could be questioned. The idea of deconstruction was then contrasted with the idea of reconstruction. Reconstruction is a conscious effort to form alternative wholes or units (entities). While a deconstructive approach merely lays bare the constituents of an existing model and questions its legitimacy and sustainability, a reconstructive approach seeks to provide alternative models. The seminar leader introduced the participants to Swadhyay, another approach to development which entailed the development of self. Swadhyay literally means the study of self. It is a socio-spiritual movement which stresses on self-reflection and harmonious co-existence. It is a network of interacting individuals and communities. The time and labour put in by the participants becomes the wealth generator in Swadhyay. Swadhyaya transcends the boundaries of nations and has been found in different forms in India, England, Caribbean, USA, and Africa. The seminar leader claimed that the Swadhyay movement could be an example of development practice where self-study and self-development are connected to being with others in many experimental ways. In the present world-order, development can be studied as a relationship that facilitates multidimensional growth of self and others. Development could be a form of action research whose aim would be to generate spaces for constructive resonance in the society. Action research could be a disciplined practice for intentional learning from experience. The seminar leader highlighted the spirit of improvisation as important in action research. Involving aesthetics and inculcating mutual forbearance could be the necessary conditions for improvisation. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) AKJR Nayak (XIMB Faculty, amar[at]ximb.ac.in) B Sahoo (Visitor) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) CS Prasad (XIMB Faculty, shambu[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) GB Moharana (Visitor, gbmoharana[at]yahoo.com) GK Nayak (XIMB Faculty, gopal[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) Krishnapriya (Research Student, Utkal Univ., priya_kri69[at]yahoo.co.in) L Panda (Visitor, lokanath68[at]yahoo.com) P Patra (Visitor) S Basantia (Visitor, basantia123[at]sify.com) S Basu (XIMB Visiting Faculty, basus[at]sify.com) S Behera (Visitor, sandhya_behera[at]rediffmail.com) S Pattnaik (XIMB Faculty, snigdha[at]ximb.ac.in) S Peppin (XIMB Faculty, peppin[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon with inputs from CD Kuruvilla, D. P. Dash, and Jacob D Vakkayil (14 October 2005) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.9 Damodar Suar, Humanities & Social Sciences, IIT Kharagpur (ds[at]hss.iitkgp.ernet.in) The seminar sought to discuss the process of survey research and the application of quantitative methods therein. In course of the seminar quantitative and qualitative methods for research were contrasted with each other. The broad steps involved in survey research were identified and the importance of quantitative methods was discussed. Issues such as choices before a researcher, need for conceptualisation of models, and the need for quantification of data were also raised. The different types of variable and their importance in research were also discussed. It became clear that every step in the process of research requires the researcher to make choices from a gamut of options available. The seminar started with the age-old feud between researchers using quantitative analysis and those using qualitative analysis, condemning each other’s practices as irrelevant and meaningless. Quantitative or qualitative analysis would not exist on their own and need to support each other. Good research is in general a mixture of quantitative and qualitative analyses. Such research is called triangulative research. It may be difficult to get research papers published without including some quantitative analysis. Moreover, it was argued, with the passage of time the qualitative aspects of theories tend to fade away and what lingers on is the quantitative component. The example of Maslow’s theory was cited as an exception, whose quantitative analysis has faded away with the passage of time. An attempt was made to identify the possible reasons for quantification and its popularity: 1. Statistical methods are perceived as "highly scientific" 2. Generalisation principles in statistical methods are easily understood 3. Computer based tools are available for handling large amounts of quantitative data 4. Correct use of statistical techniques provides a high degree of precision in results The seminar leader emphasised the importance of quantitative techniques in survey research. He outlined the different steps of a typical survey research project: 1. Selection of topic 2. Formulation of research question 3. Identification of constructs and variables 4. Preparation of questionnaire and interview schedule 5. Sampling 6. Pilot survey 7. Data collection 8. Preparation of master sheet 9. Statistical analysis 10. Interpretation 11. Report writing The seminar leader pointed out that there was a possibility of quantitative or numerical techniques being used at many steps in the research process. In this context meta-analysis was presented as a method for quantitative review of literature. When this is possible, it could guide the researcher in selecting research topics. The discussion moved towards quantification issues regarding what is generally considered as soft data, pertaining to subjective concepts such as love, hate, etc. In this connection, the difference between concept, construct, and variables was discussed. Concepts are rendered measurable by constructs and constructs are decomposed into operational variables. Examples: Concept: Intelligence One construct may be: IQ (accordingly, the variables will be: numerical ability, verbal ability, etc.) Another construct may be: EQ (accordingly, the variables will be: self-awareness, self-regulation, etc.) Quantification of variables such as self-awareness, self-regulation, etc., using scales for measurement of behavioural intentions was discussed. We also talked about practical guidelines that could aid easy quantification such as use of close-ended questions in the questionnaire. Different types of variable were discussed too. The dependent, independent, intervening, and intravening variables were introduced to the participants. The moderating and mediator variables were discussed as a sub-classification of intervening and intravening variables. A moderator variable is one which affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable. Specifically within a correlation analysis framework, a moderator is a third variable that affects the zero-order correlation between two other variables. A given variable may be said to function as a mediator when it accounts for the relation between the predictor and the criterion. It could also be stated that a moderator variable is one that influences the strength of a relationship between two other variables, and a mediator variable is one that explains the relationship between the two other variables. The need for the formation of a conceptual model was stressed. Ideally, the model could be a bird’s eye view of the literature that would provide a foundation to develop the research work. The different steps in a survey research process require the researcher to make certain choices that determine the options available subsequently. It is a process of consciously narrowing down to what exactly the researcher seeks. Choice of the unit of study and interpreting the behaviour of variables decide the outcome of the survey research. Choosing a sample size is critical for survey research. Larger the sample size, more it is representative of the population (not straight away; e.g., heterogeneous population). A pilot survey is vital to check the working of the questionnaire. Data collection by trained personnel and its interpretations through statistical methods are important in survey research. The seminar leader cautioned the participants regarding the idiosyncrasies of researchers. The personal bias that the researcher brings in without being aware of it could have a bearing on the process of research. The researcher needs to be aware of the same. The researcher needs to narrow down from broad tentative points of investigation to specific researchable questions. For a survey research project to be fruitful, there has to be some clarity about the audience to be addressed and the exact purpose of the research. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) D Bhambani (PGP-I, XIMB, u105018[at]ximb.ac.in) J Mukherjee (XIMB Faculty, jaydeep[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) Krishnapriya (Research Student, Utkal Univ., priya_kri69[at]yahoo.co.in) P Mishra (XIMB Faculty, pmishra[at]ximb.ac.in) RB Modjeski (Guest, modjeski[at]ximb.ac.in) S Agasty (RM-II, XIMB, u304034[at]ximb.ac.in) S Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) S Roy (XIMB Faculty, subhajyoti[at]ximb.ac.in) and the PGPRM-I students (Batch of 2005-2007) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash and Jacob D Vakkayil (20 January 2006). http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.10 Debasis Pradhan, Doctoral Scholar, IRMA (f012[at]irma.ac.in, debasispradhan[at]yahoo.com) Guide: Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organisations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.
“Validation is an unending process ... Most psychological measures need to be constantly evaluated and reevaluated to see if they are behaving as they should” (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994, p. 84). Developing a sound scale is a difficult and time consuming process. While developing a new measure one could rely on the practices adopted by researchers earlier. A review of scale development practices conducted by Hinkin (1995) highlights the significance of the various methods used for scale development. Schwab (1980) suggests that the development of a measure could be done in three stages: i) Item development, i.e., generation of individual items--focus on capturing the domain of interest to ensure "content validity." ii) Scale development, i.e., combination of individual items to form the scale--focus on the assessment of the psychometric properties of the scale. iii) Scale evaluation, i.e., psychometric examination of the new measure--focus on "construct validity." The seminar leader dwelt on the various aspects of measurement and development of instruments for survey research. He focused on the construction and use of an instrument for measuring the marketing environment and promotion mix of rural enterprises--his area of doctoral research. Promotion includes any activity that a firm uses to communicate with customers, using a "promotional mix," which involves a combination of five elements: mass media advertising, direct promotion, personal selling, sales promotion, and public relations (Armstrong & Kotler, 2004, p. 399). After outlining his area of research, the seminar leader presented his research questions: i) What is the promotion mix adopted by rural enterprises; is there any similarity and/or difference between that adopted by different types of industry (categorised as per Government of India)? ii) What is the role of environment (both internal and external) in their promotion mix? The internal and external factors which influence the promotion mix were discussed. The internal factors were size of the organisation, product category, quality differentiation of products (QDP), and rate of innovation by the firm. The external factors were competition in the industry, target market, and usage pattern by consumers. Hypotheses: H1: The proportion of push and pull strategy in the promotion mix will vary with the type of industry. H2: Promotion mix will vary with internal and external environment of the industry. The "sampling universe" selected was the rural enterprises in western India and the "sampling frame" was the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) directory. As per the definition used in the present study, rural enterprise means any enterprise located in rural area or township (as specified by the Government of India), which produces goods or renders services with or without the use of power. The fixed capital investment per artisan or worker should not exceed INR 50,000 (in plant, machinery, land, and building). A sample of 30 respondents was considered for scale development, selected randomly from the sampling frame. The study included three different product categories: khadi, detergents & chemicals, and handmade paper. Of the external and internal factors, four factors--rate of innovation, quality differentiation of products, competition in the industry, and the target market--were chosen for measurement. Positively worded items wherein favourable attitudes were ranked higher on the scale were included to reduce "response pattern bias" and "systematic error," which may arise due to some imperfect aspect of the research design. To measure the factors a 5-point Likert scale was developed, with a neutral measure and the ratings moving from negative to positive. The next step in the process is to to ensure "reliability" of the new measure by checking for internal consistency of the factors. The most common internal consistency measure is Cronbach's alpha, which is usually interpreted as the mean of all possible "split-half coefficients." Reliability tests conducted yielded Cronbach alpha (standarised) values for the various factors: rate of innovation (0.8333), quality differentiation of products (0.7478), competition in the industry (0.8057), and target market (0.8627). All the alpha values are above 0.7, which indicate satisfactory internal consistency. If the alpha values were less than 0.7, then some of the items would have to be deleted and the instrument checked for "content validity." The use of a small sample size and not using test-retest reliability for internal consistency were cited as limitations. Non-usage of the LISREL technique for "confirmatory factor analysis" was cited as another limitation in the scale development process. The use of LISREL would have led to better reliability of the scale. Some of the findings from the field were presented. Organisations with high rate of innovation, higher number of product categories, higher intensity of competition, and greater diversity in usage pattern of consumers laid greater emphasis on the "push" strategy (free sampling and personal selling with the use of Internet in the handmade paper industry). There was some discussion on the assumptions involved in quantitative data analysis. For example, it was suggested that the characteristics of the "statistical population" need to be well defined in order to ensure the reliability of the findings. References: Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2004). Marketing: An introduction, 7th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organisations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. Korman, A. K. (1974). Contingency approaches to leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 189-195). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory, 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organization behavior. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 2. (pp. 3-43 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business research methods, 7th Edition. London: Thomson Learning. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) Amar KJR Nayak (XIMB Faculty, amar[at]ximb.ac.in) B Mohanty (XIMB Faculty, brajaraj[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) Deepak Bhambhani (Student, u105018[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) Ibha Kumar (XIMB Faculty, ibha[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) Krishnapriya (Research Student, Utkal Univ., priya_kri69[at]yahoo.co.in) Niraj Kumar (XIMB Faculty, niraj[at]ximb.ac.in) Rajiv Sadavartia (Student, u105096[at]ximb.ac.in) Rohit Verma (Student, u105042[at]ximb.ac.in) S Ray (XIMB Faculty, subhajyoti[at]ximb.ac.in) Srikanth Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by CD Kuruvilla, with inputs from JD Vakkayil and AG Menon (08 February 2006). http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.11 Meenakshi Khemka (née Choudhary), Globsyn Business School, Kolkata (meenakshichy[at]yahoo.co.in) Doctoral research often leads one to hitherto unexplored areas and thus calls for definition of new concepts. The seminar leader presented her doctoral work and threw light on the various facets of her research. Under the guidance of Prof.Vinayshil Gautam, she attempted to understand the growth of organisations from a perspective called "longitudinal thinking." Organisations pass through various phases in the process of their development. Each phase is defined by the organisation's structure, processes, and various growth factors. Identifying the distinct phases in the evolution process helps us understand the organisational dynamics. Every phase begins with a set of givens. The present state of an organisation is an accumulated product of the experiences of the past states. The process of identifying and understanding the givens is defined as longitudinal thinking. A study of the historical data related to an organisation's growth gives insight into its legacy factors and structural stability. This also helps to locate the factors which contributed to the continuity and discontinuity in its growth path. Developing a research approach to define and measure a new concept calls for diligence. A judicious use of quantitative and qualitative methods available would have to be made. The variables constituting organisational structure were taken to be "bureaucracy," "span of control," "job satisfaction," and "work design." The variables defining organisational process were defined as "organisational policies," "information processing factors" (such as "environment scanning," "freedom of working," and "communication"), "knowledge management," "change management," and "organisational factors" (such as "top management support"). The variables defining growth were taken to be "technology" and "innovative capabilitiy." In order to understand the growth of an organisation from this new persective the seminar leader had selected two organisations from the pharmaceutical industry. Since the study involved the collection and analysis of data corresponding to the organisational structure, processes, and growth over a period of time, the questionnaire method was used to study the present state of the organisation and the interview method to understand the past phases of the organisation. Developing a questionnaire to measure the constructs of organisational structure, processes, and growth using the concept of longitudinal thinking was difficult. A study of information available with the organisation in the form of newsletters and annual reports helped to frame the questions. Collection of data from the personnel who were spread across the country was an uphill task that took about a year. The data collected were analysed using SPSS. A content analysis of the data collected from the interviews was done using ATLAS.ti 4.1 (http://www.atlasti.com/index.php). From the analysis it was evident that the structural variables, autonomy of work design, and job satisfaction had a significant correlation with the dependent variables, innovation and R&D. From the analysis of the variables related to organisational processes, the organisational policies and top management support had a significant correlation with innovation and R&D. The findings from the qualitative analysis were found to corroborate the findings from the quantitative analysis. It was thus concluded that the elements of continuity for the organisational structure were autonomy and job satisfaction, and the elements for continuity of the organisational processes were organisational policies, environmental scanning, and top management support. The research lent support to the idea that an organisation's growth depend on its ability to understand and leverage the strengths of its heritage. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) Krishnapriya (Research Student, Utkal Univ., priya_kri69[at]yahoo.co.in) Srikanth Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by CD Kuruvilla, with inputs from Jacob D Vakkayil and AG Menon (15 March 2006). http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.12 Soumendra K. Dash, Institute of Finance and International Management, Bangalore (somendash2002[at]yahoo.com) PART 1
"Measurement is the systematic assignment of numbers to objects or events" (McCall, 1970, p. 1). A well-defined scale makes the task of research easier. In physical sciences, the presence of absolute zero and a constant unit of measurement ensure transferability of the measure across contexts. For example, temperature of different bodies can be measured on the same scale. Each scale possesses certain inherent assumptions regarding the correspondence of numbers with real world entities. An increase in knowledge of the phenomenon leads to an increase in the level of correspondence--thus increases the "robustness" of the scale. Robustness of a scale is defined as the degree to which the scale can function correctly in the presence of invalid inputs or stressful environmental conditions. In behavioural sciences, due to the lack of constant units of measurement, the process of measurement itself becomes a complex issue. The lack of consistency gives the freedom of interpretation. There are certain concerns regarding measurement in behavioural sciences: (a) Can we really measure behavioural variables? (b) Do we pass judgements with our inherent biases in the name of measurement? (c) Does the scale actually measure what it is intended to measure? The goal of scales in behavioural sciences has been to measure behavioural constructs. Behavioural concepts are abstractions of reality and often subject to comparison, which is quite similar to a physical concepts. If we were to find who is taller among two individuals (using the concept "tallness"), we measure their heights (unsing the construct "height"). Similarly, if we were to measure the beauty (concept) of two individuals, we need to define suitable constructs (which should be meaningful and relevant in the desired context) and then measure them. The similarity here is that one individual could be taller than another and likewise one individual could be more beautiful than another. The problem arises when we try to interpret the observations across contexts. Height of an individual could be compared to height of a building, door, or say an elephant, in absolute terms. But, can we compare the beauty of a person with that of a flower, the rainbow, or say a small kitten? Additionally, the connotation of the concept of beauty may vary from social context to cultural context, or to physical context. But the connotation tallness is same across contexts. Hence, there have been attempts to bring uniformity of measure in (scaling for) the behavioural sciences. The subjectivity in the analysis of variables needs to be addressed carefully. There are different kinds of scale to measure different kinds of variable. A variable is said to be "categorical" if it could be classified as belonging to a group or not, i.e., the variables tend to take a limited number of discrete values. With "continuous" variables, the objects of measurement vary in a graded way with respect to the property of interest. Categorical variables are generally measured on a "nominal" scale while "ordinal," "interval," and "ratio" scales are used to measure continuous variables. * Nominal Scale: Here, numbers distinguish among categories. Numbers reflect nothing about the properties of the individuals other than that they are different. Example: Male=1, Female=2 * Ordinal Scale: They designate an ordering. Numbers represent the rank order of the variable being measured. This scale does not assume that the intervals between numbers are equal. Example: In a contest: 1st place=1, 2nd place=2, 3rd place=3. * Interval Scale: This scale designates an equal-interval ordering. Numbers indicate relative amounts of the attribute; also, equal distances between numbers assigned to subjects reflect equal differences in the amounts of the attribute measured. The zero point on this scale is not absolute. Example: Fahrenheit temperature scale. * Ratio Scale: Ratio scale designates an equal-interval ordering with a true zero point (i.e., the zero implies an absence of the thing being measured). Example: Height, Weight, time interval. The seminar leader introduced the criteria for checking a scale and mentioned a few tests: * Reliability tests to check the repeatability and internal consistency of the scales, i.e., whether the scale gives similar outputs for similar objects measured. Example: Test-retest method, split-half method, equivalent-form method. * Validity tests: In terms of assessment, validity refers to the extent to which a scale is able to measure what is intended to be measured. Reliability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for validity. For instance, if the needle of the scale to measure weight is two kilograms away from zero, one could always over-report my weight by two kilograms. Here the scale is consistent, but consistently wrong. So, the scale is not valid. Types of validity: Face validity, criterion validity, construct validity. * Face validity refers to professional agreement that the scale logically appears to accurately measure what it is intended to measure. * Criterion validity is the ability of some measure to correlate other measure of the same construct. There are different conceptualizations of criterion validity: (i) Concurrent Validity: A type of criterion validity whereby a new measure correlates with a criterion measure taken at the same time. (ii) Predictive Validity: A type of criterion validity whereby a new measure predicts a future event or correlates with a criterion measure administered at a later time. * Construct validity refers to the degree to which inferences can legitimately be made from the operationalisations in the study to the theoretical constructs on which these operationalisations are based. The different conceptualizations of construct validity are as follows: (i) Discriminant validity: The ability of some measure to have a low correlation with measures of dissimilar concepts. (ii) Convergent Validity: It is synonymous with criterion validity * Sensitivity tests: Sensitivity of a measurement instrument is its ability to accurately measure variability in stimuli or responses. For example, a 5-point Likert scale could be more sensitive than a 3-point Likert scale. It was emphasised that scales measuring behavioural intentions and expectations need to be designed with utmost care. Such scales aim to take into account the subjectivity brought in by the entities to be measured. PART 2 The second half of the seminar was devoted to a practical exercise of developing a scale. The objective of the activity was to develop a framework for faculty evaluation using the existing knowledge and develop a scale which could objectively measure the faculty performance. The objective of the process was to develop, from first principles, the expectations from management faculty. This was initiated by first brainstorming in the seminar group. It turned out that a number of criteria were similar to each other but were being articulated differently. Finally, we arrived at the following criteria: 1. Bringing out the relevance of theory to managerial practice 2. Enhancing the knowledge of the student in the subject 3. Getting the students interested in the subject 4. Promoting self-guided learning among students 5. Conducting classes as per pre-planned schedule 6. Keeping students attentive through the class 7. Accommodating divergent thinking on the subject 8. Accepting criticism on own teaching methods positively and improving 9. Giving a comprehensive perspective on the subject 10. Meeting the expected learning in the course 11. Broadening the outlook of the student in the subject 12. Measuring up on the desired breadth and depth of knowledge in the subject 13. Demonstrating communication skills 14. Helping students in academic matters 15. Giving suitable project work and assignments in augmenting class-room learning 16. Creating a level playing field for students with and without work experience 17. Producing healthy discussion in the class 18. Giving regular feedback to the students 19. Giving reasonable grades 20. Demonstrating impartiality of in evaluation 21. Bringing relevant industry experience into the course 22. Giving reasonable amount of relevant assignments 23. Engaging students in the subject, after the class 24. Maintaining discipline in the class There was a need for a method to narrow down the list to a smaller set of criteria which could be measured practically. It was suggested that factor analysis could be useful for this. References: Harris, M. B. (1995). Basic statistics for behavioral science research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. McCall, R. B. (1970). Fundamental statistics for psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) A Kumar (Student, XIMB, u304003[at]ximb.ac.in) B Mohanty (XIMB Faculty, brajaraj[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) I Kumar (XIMB Faculty, ibha[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) J Mukherjee (XIMB Faculty, jaydeep[at]ximb.ac.in) S Agasty (Student, XIMB, u304034[at]ximb.ac.in) S Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) S Ray (XIMB Faculty, subhajyoti[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash and Jacob D Vakkayil (19 February 2006). http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.13 Group Discussion (XIMB Faculty and Doctoral Scholars) This research training seminar was conducted as a group discussion. The participants discussed various issues pertaining to measurement in research. Measurement is an essential activity in research. It is the process of assigning numbers to entities which are being studied. Precision and correctness of measurement are vital in research. Measurement depends a lot on the entities to be measured and the context in which the measurement is being undertaken. The same entity may be measured differently by different researchers. However, sometimes it becomes necessary in research to develop standard measures. Therefore, reliability, unbiasedness, etc., become important qualities in such cases. Still, interpretations and inferences drawn after measurement can vary and they shape the future course of research. The subjectivity involved is a critical consideration to be taken into account during the process of measurement. The issues of measurement were then discussed vis-à-vis a research project being conducted currently by some of the participants. It involves developing a scale for measuring teaching effectiveness in a business school context. One of the difficult aspects was to measure the “attitude” of the teacher towards students' learning. In this context, the use of attitudinal scales such as Thurstone and Likert scales was discussed. But, the way these scales deal with subjectivity of the responses remains to be clarified. It was stressed that the purpose of measurement needs to be properly defined. It was suggested that a well defined research framework be drawn before the data collection phase. Clarity of concept and knowledge on the subject are necessary for addressing issues of measurement in research. Measurements usually involve mapping. Mapping is the process of representing one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain. It refers to a systematic set of correspondences that exist between the constituent elements of the source and the target domains. It requires analogical reasoning. The process of measurement in research consists of conceptualisation and operationalisation. Conceptualisation involves the formation of concepts. It is important to relate concepts to theories. The researcher might come up with a new concept, but such initiatives are rare in research. The process of taking a conceptual definition and making it more usable by linking it to one or more specific, concrete indicators could be termed as operationalisation. This is usually done through numbers that reflect empirical reality. After operationalisation, the process of measurement involves determining the level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio), and then assessment of reliability and validity. The role of estimates in research was discussed. To estimate is to judge and form an opinion regarding the value (intrinsic or extrinsic) of an object from imperfect data. This was examined in the context of financial management. Financial management is a field where estimates are used in the absence of actual figures. It was suggested that researchers can make a choice regarding the use of estimates. The use of "shadow estimates" and "surrogates" in financial research was cited. A specific example would be the shadow price estimate. In finance and economics, it refers to the use of linear programming techniques in a situation where price cannot be charged or where the price does not reflect the effort made in producing the good. It is an attempt to achieve optimum allocation of resources in the absence of an effective pricing system. In financial markets, it refers to the arbitrary assignment of money values to non-marketed products. Surrogate refers to a substitute. The use of surrogates and shadow estimates aid the process of measurement in research. The issue of subjectivity in the use of estimates was discussed. Estimates not being the exact figures might lead to errors. There could be a chance of differing estimates for the same entity. It was concluded that the issue needs careful attention of the researcher. The role of modelling and mapping in research were also discussed. Modelling refers to the process of generating a model as a conceptual representation of some phenomenon. Typically a model refers only to some aspects of the phenomenon in question. It is highly likely that two models of the same phenomenon may be different. It is essential to know the actual purpose of the modeller and the assumptions that have been made. Models in general are domain specific. A model is used when it is helpful in understanding a particular phenomenon in a specific context. It helps the researcher to follow the logic of the phenomenon under study. However, there could be context-independent models too, which can be transferred across domains. The discussion then shifted to the issue of reflexivity. Reflexivity is difficult topic in the measurement literature. Reflexivity could be termed as the researcher’s awareness of the ways in which the researcher's involvement with a particular study influences, acts upon, and informs the research. It could refer to the ways in which the researcher’s values, experiences, interests, beliefs, etc., have shaped the research. It might also refer to the assumptions (about the world and knowledge) that the researcher has made in the course of the research. It helps the researcher to think about the implications of such assumptions for the research and its findings. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) B Sanjeev (Visitor, bsanjeev[at]imis.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) GK Nayak (XIMB Faculty, gopal[at]ximb.ac.in) I Kumar (XIMB Faculty, ibha[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) J Mukherjee (XIMB Faculty, jaydeep[at]ximb.ac.in) Krishnapriya (Research Student, Utkal Univ., priya_kri69[at]yahoo.co.in) MK Samal (Visitor, smamaswee[at]yahoo.co.in) S Panda (Visitor, spanda[at]imis.ac.in) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash and Jacob D Vakkayil (16 March 2006). http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.14 Rajshri Jobanputra, Department of Humanities, IIT Roorkee (jrajifhs[at]iitr.ernet.in) The decision to undertake doctoral research has a major bearing on one's career. One is faced with new challenges on a daily basis. Narrating her experience of doctoral research at IIT, Mumbai, the seminar leader recalled the difficulties she faced in settling down in the vast campus and the everyday challenges of completing the coursework. Later she dwelt on her doctoral thesis, "Embracing vagueness: The pragmatic approach." To illustrate the topic of her research, she gave the following example: It is impossible to differentiate exactly short people from tall people. Where does the difference lie? At what height do we refer to a person as short or tall? That is what vagueness is all about. A term is considered vague to the extent that it has borderline cases. Absolute borderline cases are targeted by Charles Sander Peirce's entry for "vague" in the 1902 Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology:
Some of the problems in the usage of language are: (a) sometimes there is a lack of definition, (b) some language is vague, (c) some words are ambiguous. The meaning of a word is its "intension." The range of the meaning is its "extension." In this context, the Sorites Paradox was mentioned. When we refer to a heap of wheat we cannot say that a particular grain contributed to it becoming a "heap of wheat." But the fact remains that it was not a heap of wheat and it gradually became one. Vagueness refers to the characteristic of words or phrases whose meaning is not determined with precision. Use of one or more vague terms typically renders it impossible to establish the truth or falsity of the sentences in which they appear. Example: The expression "the temperature is warm today" is difficult to evaluate because there is no clear borderline between "warm" and "not warm" ("Vagueness," 2002b). That brought the discussion to the concept of ambiguity in language. Ambiguity refers to the presence of two or more distinct meanings for a single word or expression. In itself, ambiguity is a feature of ordinary language. When unnoticed in the context of otherwise careful reasoning, however, it can lead to fallacies. Example: The expression "I will give you a ring tomorrow" could signify either the promise of a gift of jewellery or merely an intention to telephone ("Ambiguity," 2004). Outlining the methods used for the study of philosophy, the seminar leader mentioned the Elenchus Method. It is the primary method of Socratic philosophy. It proceeds by an intensive series of questions to the interviewee and aims to advance the discussion through refutations. This systematic arguing and questioning method helps to understand the different facets of the problem at hand by adequate reasoning. We will face situations where vagueness and ambiguity come into play in day-to-day life and to differentiate the finer shades would be our task. References: Ambiguity. (2004). Philosophical Dictionary. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm#amb Vagueness. (2002a). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/ Vagueness. (2002b). Philosophical Dictionary. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/v.htm#vag The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) Ibha Kumar (XIMB Faculty, ibha[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) J Mukherjee (XIMB Faculty, jaydeep[at]ximb.ac.in) Krishnapriya (Research Student, Utkal Univ., priya_kri69[at]yahoo.co.in) SS Ganesh (XIMB Faculty, ssganesh[at]ximb.ac.in) S Ray (XIMB Faculty, subhajyoti[at]ximb.ac.in) Srikanth Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by CD Kuruvilla, with inputs from Jacob D Vakkayil (16 March 2006). http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.15 Lyubov Gurjeva, Independent Researcher, Moscow (lgg1000[at]hotmail.com) Popular science has often been misconstrued as science in daily lives. The seminar addressed the issues related to it. Scientific childcare was taken up as the context to study popular science vis-à-vis science in daily lives. There has been a view that popular science is a simplified version of scientific facts and theories, a medium to facilitate the transfer of scientific knowledge to common people. The seminar leader described science as a part of social and cognitive phenomena. She stressed that popularisation of science was as important to everyday life as it was to the scientific enterprise. Cognition as a social phenomenon is the basic assumption for analysing science in daily life. Community based shared practices and communications have aided the existence of science. The seminar leader represented the human community with concentric circles. The "esoteric" (inner) circle represented the group of researchers, who are quite secretive about their activities. They refrain from sharing their practices but sometimes share their tools with the people outside their circle. As the circles widen, they represent people with decreasing knowledge of scientific facts and theories. The difference between the stakeholders at the "exoteric" (outer) circle and the esoteric circle could be characterised by the kind of communication practised within their respective communities. In this context, research articles and textbook-science were contrasted with each other with respect to language and content. While research articles use terminologies beyond the comprehension of common people, textbooks use easy to understand language and often skip excessive details. A set of intellectual obstacles faced during the study of the process of "production of science" was referred to as ghost by the seminar leader. The term "ghosts" has been borrowed from Plato who proposed the metaphor of the prisoners in the cave who see only "ghosts of life" beyond the cave in the shadows cast upon the cave wall. Like the prisoner's necessity to get closer to life through the ghostly shadows, the proponents of popular science tend to defend their ghosts of intellectual convictions. The participants discussed the images of science in advertising of child-care goods and infant foods in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Britain. It was observed that the references to science were widespread. A compilation of specific references to science by advisors on matters of child-care shows that there was no uniformity in what was referred to as scientific knowledge, for example on the composition of milk. The numbers in the study of fat and albumin content in cow's and human milk by different studies are the symbols developed for conceptual understanding of science related to it. In those days, infant-feeding and childcare were studied as ways to study human beings. By the "law of recapitulation" every individual in its development repeats the process of evolution of its own species. People are drawn into the scientific community by listening and adhering to the practices of scientifically raising children. The ghost of scientism makes historians and sociologists treat scientific and non-scientific actors asymmetrically. Scientists have names, biographies, and motives. They chronicle the same. Their counterparts are mostly anonymous. They tend to be undifferentiated and passive recipients of science. Science and its related disciplines are well-defined and command visibility than activities like routine childcare. Scientific childcare seems more attractive than routine childcare. This leads to a debate on science and its authority. Science is a complex enterprise. If we merely study its end results and symbols, we fail to get its relevance in daily lives. The different images of science could be considered as the different narratives of science. Idealism was presented as another ghost of popular science. Idealism in the study of the sciences suggests a unidirectional relationship between scientific community and those outside of it. It suggests that science makes everyday life more rational. Relationship between scientists and the public is built upon the belief of cognitive superiority of scientists. It is accepted that scientists specialise in elaborating universally true ideas about the world. Science is often envisioned as an ideal practice. General public was introduced to the participants as the third ghost of popular science. The use of the term "general public" gives the notion of a singular impact of science on the public as a whole. This goes against the common acceptance of the existence of different conceptualisations and uses of science by distinct groups and individuals. The notion of general public fails to reflect the heterogeneity and diversity of the public. Moreover, the term "general" is open to interpretations. The seminar leader suggested certain methodological remedies that could help the researcher treat the ghosts of popular science. Scientism could be addressed by treating scientific and non-scientific artefacts symmetrically to enable better historical interpretation. Various actors from history could be included and widening the range of sources could show the implications of science on various activities. Unconventional and ephemeral printed sources could be included. In this context the integration of history with the study of scientific research practice could be a challenging task. Idealism could be treated with materialism where attention is given to material practice. There could be an attempt by the scientific community to understand the ideas outside the esoteric circle and as to how are they embedded in things. Popularisation of science could be directed at specific publics instead of the so-called general public. Building on the competence of the audience would aid the propagation of science. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) AKJR Nayak (XIMB Faculty, amar[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) CS Prasad (XIMB Faculty, shambu[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) GK Nayak (XIMB Faculty, gopal[at]ximb.ac.in) J Mukherjee (XIMB Faculty, jaydeep[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) Jyothibabu (visitor, jyothibabu[at]ntpc.co.in) Krishnapriya (Research Student, Utkal Univ., priya_kri69[at]yahoo.co.in) S Pattnaik (XIMB Faculty, snigdha[at]ximb.ac.in) S Peppin (XIMB Faculty, peppin[at]ximb.ac.in) S Roy (XIMB Faculty, subhajyoti[at]ximb.ac.in) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash (16 March 2006) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/R3.16 Manavi Pathak, Fellow Scholar, XLRI, Jamshedpur (manavi24[at]yahoo.com) Projective techniques are an important set of tools for research in behavioural science. Here, the respondent’s real feelings are inferred from what the respondent says about external objects and images. When a respondent is subjected to direct questions or confronting queries, the responses do not reflect the attitude and motivation. This tendency of the respondent to hide certain things from the examiner (questioner) could be attributed to various reasons such as the fear of a true and honest response creating a negative impression. It could also be that the respondent is unaware of his/her own inherent biases. Projective techniques allow respondents to project their subjective or true opinions and beliefs onto other people or objects. Projective techniques may be contrasted with the so-called objective methods of data collection, such as true/false questions or multiple-choice questions The scoring in these objective methods is done according to a set of procedures. It requires little or no judgement on the part of the examiner. In contrast, projective techniques are highly subjective. Although, they have a set of defined procedures, they need the examiner to make a good number of judgements, which are critical for the study. Introduced by Lawrence K. Frank (1980-1968) in 1939, projective techniques in research draw heavily from the psychoanalytic theory of personality. The psychoanalytic theory suggests that much of the explanations for contradicting human behaviour lies hidden in the unconscious. This is the result of how a person negotiates conflicting, deep-rooted desires and instincts. There is an overlap of the psychoanalytic theory with some of the learning theories. The early years of development make a critical contribution to the adult psyche. Responses from projective techniques represent projections from the unconscious mental processes. There are attempts in projective techniques to overcome the defence mechanisms strongly ingrained in an individual. The basic assumption for projective techniques is that personal interpretations of ambiguous stimulus must reflect unconscious needs, motives, and conflicts of the person. The origin of projective techniques can be traced back to Francis Galton (1879), who used the word association test in psychology. He used a list of 75 stimulus words on his respondents with which he read and noted their responses. The responses to the words had a tendency to remain alike and they were typically taken from the respondent's childhood experiences. This prompted future studies by prominent psychologists such as Freud in the area of psychoanalysis dealing with the unconscious mind and free association. There are different ways of administering word association tests: * A list of words or phrases can be presented in random order to the respondents who then are requested to state or write the word or phrase that pops into their minds. * Respondents can be asked for what word or phrase comes to mind immediately upon hearing certain words. * Respondents can be introduced to slogans or punch lines and their reactions noted. * Respondents can be asked to describe an inanimate object by giving it "human characteristics" or associating descriptive adjectives with it. Hermann Ebbinghaus developed the sentence completion test for the measurement of intelligence. In this method, the respondents are given incomplete sentences and asked to complete the thought. These sentences are usually in the third person and tend to be ambiguous. Sentence completion tests are easier to interpret since the answers provided will be more detailed than in a word association test. However, the intent in a sentence completion test is also more obvious to the respondent, and could result in less honest replies. Alfred Binet used verbal response to pictures as a measure of intelligence and later Rorschach used the inkblot test: Respondents are shown inkblots of random designs and their responses to the same are noted. Rorschach's inkblots have been used consistently over a period of time and the responses standardised. Projective techniques can be classified as: (a) Association techniques, (b) Completion techniques, (c) Construction techniques, and (d) Expression techniques. Association Techniques Popular among association techniques are Rorschach inkblot test and Holtzman inkblot test. Rorschach’s test is a projective technique for psychological evaluation aiming at probing the unconscious mind of the respondent. In Rorschach’s test, there are ten original inkblots. Five inkblots have black ink on white card. Two have black and red ink on white card. Three are multicoloured. The administrator shows the inkblots in a particular order and asks the respondent to say the first thing that comes to mind. After the respondent has seen and responded to all the inkblots, the administrator then gives them to him/her again one at a time to study. The respondent is asked to say everything he/she sees in each inkblot. The blot can also be rotated by the respondent at will. Although the administrator will not tell the respondent so, spontaneous turning of the blot or asking permission to do so is seen as a distinct sign. All the while, the administrator meticulously notes down the response of the respondent. Scoring is done based on the location on the card on which the respondent focuses, respondent's logic, and content of the response. Abnormality is detected by contrasting the response with popular ones. Various issues relating to the test were discussed. The reliability and validity of the test were questioned. The matter of administrator's biases in the test was discussed. High inter-scorer differences could be an indication of the low reliability of the test. Holtzman’s inkblot test is often described as a multivariable projective personality test. It was designed to overcome the limitations of Rorschach’s test. The inkblot test consists of two forms of 45 inkblots. It is scored on 22 variables. Although, the test scores high on reliability, there is not much information regarding the validity of the test. The inter-scorer consistency on many of the variable scores is the basis for the test’s reliability. Completion Techniques The commonly used completion techniques are the sentence completion tests and the Rosenweig’s picture frustration test. In the sentence completion technique, the respondent is provided with an incomplete sentence and is asked to complete the same. The completed sentences reflect underlying motivation, attitudes, conflicts, and fears of the respondent. The test covers the respondent’s family behaviour, interpersonal relations, and self-concept. Rosenweig’s picture frustration test requires the respondent to produce a verbal response to highly structured verbal--pictorial (pictures, audio, video, etc.) stimuli. Available in three forms namely Child, Adolescent, and Adult, the test consists of 24 comic strip pictures depicting frustrating circumstances. The purpose is to assess the respondent’s characteristic manner of reacting to frustration. Rosenweig defined frustration as occurring whenever an individual encounters obstacle or obstruction en route to the satisfaction of a need. Construction Techniques Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and Children’s Apperception Test (CAT) are a few of the well-known construction techniques. Developed by Henry Murray in 1938, The TAT was originally designed to assess needs and "press". Needs organise perception, thought, and action, and energise behaviour in the direction of their satisfaction. "Press" refers to the power of environmental events to influence a person. The test consists of 30 pictures portraying a variety of themes and has one blank card. Its Indian adaptation is by Uma Choudhary. The basic assumption in the test is that the respondent identifies with the character and projects his/her needs, strivings, and feelings with the main character in the picture. Conversely the thoughts, feelings, and actions avoided represent areas of conflict. The CAT was developed by Alan S. Bellack on lines of TAT. It consists of 10 pictures meant for children, 3-10 years of age. The 10 items consist of 10 scenes showing a variety of animal figures in human social settings. The use of animal figures was based on the assumption that children of these ages would identify more readily with appealing drawings of animals. There exists no formal scoring system in CAT. Expression Techniques Draw a Person (DAP) test was developed by Karen Machover. It is widely used as a clinical assessment tool. Here the respondents project unacceptable impulses to the opposite sex. The test is based on the respondent's drawings of human figures. This test is used with two different scoring systems for different purposes. One measures nonverbal intelligence while the other checks the respondent for emotional or behavioural disorders. Another interesting expression technique is the House-Tree-Person (HTP) test. Developed by John N Buck, the primary purpose of the HTP is to measure aspects of a person's personality through interpretation of drawings and responses to questions. It is also sometimes used as part of an assessment of brain damage or overall neurological functioning. Here, the respondents respond to ambiguous, abstract, or unstructured stimuli. In the HTP, the respondent is asked to draw houses, trees, and persons, and these drawings provide a measure of self-perceptions and attitudes. The drawings provide the following clues: House: Mirrors the respondent’s home life and interfamilial relationships Tree: Reflects the manner in which the respondent experiences the environment Person: Reflects the respondent’s interpersonal relationships Projective techniques have found application in fields such as clinical research, personnel selection, and consumer behaviour analysis. In clinical research, it helps to identify states and traits that characterise particular conditions. It helps in treatment planning. It also aids counselling and psychotherapy. Projective techniques have been found useful in research on gender and cross-cultural differences. New approaches to scoring in projective techniques continue to emerge. At the same time, validity and reliability of the techniques continue to puzzle researchers. The seminar was attended by: AG Menon (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505001[at]ximb.ac.in) AKJR Nayak (XIMB Faculty, amar[at]ximb.ac.in) CD Kuruvilla (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u505002[at]ximb.ac.in) D. P. Dash (XIMB Faculty, dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in) I Kumar (XIMB Faculty, ibha[at]ximb.ac.in) JD Vakkayil (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u504001[at]ximb.ac.in) MN Tripathy (XIMB Faculty, mnt[at]ximb.ac.in) S Malik (XIMB, sunil[at]ximb.ac.in) S Panigrahy (Fellow Scholar, XIMB, u503002[at]ximb.ac.in) S Pattnaik (XIMB Faculty, snigdha[at]ximb.ac.in) Tattwamesi (Visitor, tattwam[at]rediffmail.com) Reported by Adwaita Govind Menon, with inputs from D. P. Dash and C. D. Kuruvilla (16 March 2006) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to the FPM website | | FPM Cell Xavier Institute of Management Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, INDIA email: dean[at]ximb.ac.in |