Basic and Applied PCT

[From Stefan Balke (2002.01.24)]

Rick Marken (2002.01.24.0945)

Is there anyone out there doing basic or applied research based on PCT?
If so, it would sure be nice to hear about what you are doing.>

Here's a suggested question for discussion: Is it possible to sell PCT
(or any scientific theory) as an application in itself? I think this is
an interesting question because every applied program I am aware of is
sold as a set of _prescribed practices_ rather than as a set of
principles (such as the principles of PCT) on the basis of which
customers can tailor practices.

I use my understanding of PCT as a basis to design the school program. Right
now I revise the plan form. What do you think are criterias that should be
met to do applied research based on PCT. Maybe I could do some sort of
research.

Best regards,
Stefan

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.24.0945)]

Is there anyone out there doing basic or applied research based on PCT?
If so, it would sure be nice to hear about what you are doing.

Here's a suggested question for discussion: Is it possible to sell PCT
(or any scientific theory) as an application in itself? I think this is
an interesting question because every applied program I am aware of is
sold as a set of _prescribed practices_ rather than as a set of
principles (such as the principles of PCT) on the basis of which
customers can tailor practices.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

Hello Rick

We (my students and I) are at the start of an extended research program
based on PCT (I have 9 undergrads and 2 masters students working on the
project this semester).

We are looking at at level 11 perceptions, particularly as they relate to
concepts in what might be called the "self concept" cluster. This semester
we will be looking at charactering perceptions that can be characterised by
terms such as myself, my ideal self, the typical Lakota, the ideal Lakota,
the typical American, the ideal American. We paln to work on measures to
capture these concepts, and followup interviews using the test to determine
if the measures are capturing controlled variables. When we have some of
the procedural problems under control, we hope to look at adolescents who
are doing well in the community and school, and those with identified
problems, to see if some of these variables seem to be different in obvious
ways between successful and troubled teens. If our luck holds and we get
all our mehtodology clean enough, we then are planning a longitudinal study
to examine the development of these perception between the ages of 8 and 14
or so.

This is just an outline, course. There is clearly a nest a vipers in the
above, and we don't even know much about level 11 yet, let alone all that
follows.

Samuel

···

On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:47:22AM -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.24.0945)]

Is there anyone out there doing basic or applied research based on PCT?
If so, it would sure be nice to hear about what you are doing.

Here's a suggested question for discussion: Is it possible to sell PCT
(or any scientific theory) as an application in itself? I think this is
an interesting question because every applied program I am aware of is
sold as a set of _prescribed practices_ rather than as a set of
principles (such as the principles of PCT) on the basis of which
customers can tailor practices.

Best regards

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D. | If man chooses oblivion, he can go right
saunders@gwtc.net | on leaving his fate to political leaders.
ssaunders@olc.edu | If he chooses Utopia, he must initiate an
                                > enormous educational campaign-immediately
                                > R. Buckminster Fuller

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.24.1600)]

Samuel Spence Saunders wrote:

We (my students and I) are at the start of an extended research program
based on PCT (I have 9 undergrads and 2 masters students working on the
project this semester).

Terrific! Please keep us posted.

Here's a suggested question for discussion: Is it possible to sell PCT
(or any scientific theory) as an application in itself?

Stefan Balke (2002.01.24)

I use my understanding of PCT as a basis to design the school program.

I know and I think that's great. But my question was really about "marketing"
an application. Do you think you could sell your program as a set of
principles (such as the principles of PCT) rather than as a set of prescribed
practices (such as asking a particular set of questions, doing a particular
set of things with a disruptive child, etc)?

What do you think are criterias that should be met to do applied research
based on PCT. Maybe I could do some sort of research.

I think applied research is a lot like conventional psychological research.
There is no model testing, no testing for controlled variables, just
systematically checking to see if changing what you do makes a difference.
For example, suppose you think that asking a particular question under certain
circumstances is essential to the program (perhaps on the basis of the
principles of PCT). Then all you do to test this is have some people ask the
question and others ask a different question under those circumstances and see
if it makes a difference in terms of some outcome measure. I think this can be
done relatively informally. From my experience, if it were done _at all_ it
would be a giant step forward in research on applied programs.

I am really glad to see that there are people out there who are trying to do
research based on PCT. Thanks, Samuel, Isaac, Stefan and anyone else who is
involved in this effort.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.24.0945)>

Here's a suggested question for discussion: Is it possible to sell PCT
(or any scientific theory) as an application in itself? I think this is
an interesting question because every applied program I am aware of is
sold as a set of _prescribed practices_ rather than as a set of
principles (such as the principles of PCT) on the basis of which
customers can tailor practices.

I think its possible, and practical, to sell PCT as a mishmash of principles
and practices from which each will extract those aspects relevant to their
background and interests. It's when the PCT experts seek to apply, or
succeed in applying, a hard science criteria to the complexities of human
behaviour, that us novices feel left behind.
David Wolsk
Victoria, Canada

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Marken" <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:47 AM
Subject: Basic and Applied PCT

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.24.2200)]

Me:

> Is it possible to sell PCT (or any scientific theory) as an

application in itself?

David Wolsk says:

I think its possible, and practical, to sell PCT as a mishmash of principles
and practices from which each will extract those aspects relevant to their
background and interests.

I agree. That's an empirical fact. I was just wondering whether it is possible
to sell PCT (the theoretical principles) as an application in itself. From a
PCT perspective, practices are lower level perceptions (programs) that might
have to be varied (depending on circumstance) in order to maintain the higher
level (PCT principle) perceptions. I see selling PCT as an application as
selling the references for principles that constitute a PCT perspective on human
nature. Different "customers" will find it necessary to use different practices
in order to perceive these principles at the "PCT reference" level. So
different customers will use different practices to carry out the same "PCT"
application. Indeed, the same customer will probably find it necessary to use
different practices at different times to carry out the same PCT program.

So I believe that if PCT itself were bought as an application it would look
different, in terms of practices, when carried out by each customer. Each
customer would be "doing PCT" (in terms of controlling for the same principle
perceptions) even though each customer was doing something different (in terms
of controlling for the practices that keep the principles under control).

If just some practices were "sold" along with the PCT principles then the
customer might feel compelled to carry out those practices in order to be doing
the program. This, I think, could interfere with the customer's ability to
control for PCT principles in certain circumstances. So I think selling PCT as a
mishmash of principles and practices actually violates the principles of PCT.
That's why I would prefer to see PCT sold as the application in itself, with,
perhaps, some suggestions for practices that _might be used_ depending on
circumstances. But this is an ideal. I was asking whether people thought this
ideal -- selling PCT itself rather than selling particular practices as those
that are "based on PCT"-- was feasible. Or is it absolutely necessary (because
of the goals of the customers for applications) to sell PCT applications in
terms of prescribed practices?

Best regards

Rick

[Martin Taylor 2002.01.26 13:00]

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.24.0945)]

Is there anyone out there doing basic or applied research based on PCT?
If so, it would sure be nice to hear about what you are doing.

You might be interested in the attached PDF file. I hope it's OK to
send attachments through the listserv. The paper was for HFES 2000 (I
think that's Human Factors Engineering Society, but don't quote me on
that). It will be copyright "Crown in Right of Canada", so treat it
as a private document, though if you find the HFES 2000 proceedings,
obviously you can reference it from there.

Martin

HFES paper 2000.pdf (101 Bytes)

[From Stefan Balke (2002.01.27)]

Stefan Balke (2002.01.24)

> I use my understanding of PCT as a basis to design the school program.

Rick:

I know and I think that's great. But my question was really about

"marketing"

an application. Do you think you could sell your program as a set of
principles (such as the principles of PCT) rather than as a set of

prescribed

practices (such as asking a particular set of questions, doing a

particular

set of things with a disruptive child, etc)?

I always present _both_ parts, PCT as a frame and the prescribed set of
actions. The teachers pay a lot attention, but no money :slight_smile:

Best regards,
Stefan

[From Rick Marken (20022.02.26.1830)]

Martin Taylor (2002.01.26 13:00) --

You might be interested in the attached PDF file. I hope it's OK to
send attachments through the listserv. The paper was for HFES 2000 (I
think that's Human Factors Engineering Society, but don't quote me on
that).

Thanks, Martin. I'm glad to see that the name "Perceptual Control Theory" (PCT) is
being kept before the eyes of some folks in HFES (that's the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, by the way). Actually, I just submitted a paper for
publication in _Human Factors_, the main journal of the HFES. The paper describes
my control model of prescription writing and how it can be used to evaluate
prescription error reduction interventions. If you or anyone else would like to
read and make comments on it I'll be happy to send a WORD version of the paper upon
request.

Stefan Balke (2002.01.27)--

I always present _both_ parts, PCT as a frame and the prescribed set of
actions. The teachers pay a lot attention, but no money :slight_smile:

Do you make it clear that the prescribed actions are _options_ that can be
changed, depending on circumstances, in order to keep oneself acting in way that is
consistent with PCT principles?

And don't sell your services short. You've made a large capital investment (in the
form of time and effort) in learning PCT. I think it's fair to ask those who
benefit from your learning to pay you back.

Best regards

Rick

On the human factors front there's is also the work of Keith Hendy in Canada
applying PCT to military task analysis with a lot of success. My reading of
other applications such as the Chery masters thesis was that it was quite
biased in that it was to a degree promoting a Gibson approach over PCT. It
seems now from the more recent articles from human factors may have started
to discover some of the benifits of PCT.

I can ask Keith whether it is OK to send around a couple of his articles I
have if people are interested.

Thanks Rohan

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of Martin Taylor
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5:03 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Basic and Applied PCT

[Martin Taylor 2002.01.26 13:00]

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.24.0945)]

Is there anyone out there doing basic or applied research based on PCT?
If so, it would sure be nice to hear about what you are doing.

You might be interested in the attached PDF file. I hope it's OK to
send attachments through the listserv. The paper was for HFES 2000 (I
think that's Human Factors Engineering Society, but don't quote me on
that). It will be copyright "Crown in Right of Canada", so treat it
as a private document, though if you find the HFES 2000 proceedings,
obviously you can reference it from there.

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.27.1750)]

Rohan Lulham wrote:

On the human factors front there's is also the work of Keith Hendy in Canada
applying PCT to military task analysis with a lot of success.

Do you have any references? This could help me in some of my work.

My reading of
other applications such as the Chery masters thesis was that it was quite
biased in that it was to a degree promoting a Gibson approach over PCT.

My experience is that if people are not participating on CSGNet they are not
doing PCT. Of course, just because someone is on CSGNet doesn't mean that they
are necessarily doing PCT. But so far I have seen no exceptions to the rule that
if one is not on CSGNet they are not doing PCT (even if they say they are). I
think the rule holds because CSGNet is a place to learn and test one's
understanding of PCT. People who don't understand PCT (and think they do)
and/or don't want to hear challenges to their understanding of PCT are not going
to join (or stay on) CSGNet.

Best regards

Rick

[From Bill Powers (2002.0128.0840 MST)]

Rick Marken (2002.01.27.1750)--

My experience is that if people are not participating on CSGNet they are not
doing PCT.

That's a neat trick, Rick. My impression of people who are not on CSGnet is
that I don't have any impression at all regarding most of them. Are you
sure you don't mean "People who are not on CSGnet and all of whose writings
about control phenomena I have seen?" And when you refer to "people" do
you mean every last one, or 51% of the people who are not on CSGnet?

It's hard for me to understand the point of statements like that. Is it to
save you the trouble of evaluating the understanding of each person
regarding each aspect of PCT that there is to understand? Is it to
discourage people who are not contributing to CSGnet from trying to
contribute, or from learning more than they presently know? Is it to
convince people who know only a little that they're incapable of learning
more, and might as well give up? Is it to set yourself up as the PCT Guru,
since the guy who invented it insists on leaving that position vacant?

Ask the Higher Power, Linda. She'll tell you you've put your galosh in your
gob again.

Bad Dog.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.28.0915)]

Me:

>My experience is that if people are not participating on CSGNet they are not
>doing PCT.

Bill Powers (2002.0128.0840 MST)

It's hard for me to understand the point of statements like that. Is it to
save you the trouble of evaluating the understanding of each person
regarding each aspect of PCT that there is to understand? Is it to
discourage people who are not contributing to CSGnet from trying to
contribute, or from learning more than they presently know? Is it to
convince people who know only a little that they're incapable of learning
more, and might as well give up? Is it to set yourself up as the PCT Guru,
since the guy who invented it insists on leaving that position vacant?

No on all counts. The statement was a reply to Rohan who (in reply to my query
about PCT research) mentioned a couple of PCT-based articles by people who, to
my knowledge, are not on CSGNet (I'd never heard of their names, anyway). With
respect to one of the articles Rohan had said:

the Chery masters thesis was...quite biased in that it was to a degree
promoting a Gibson approach over PCT.

This is what led to my observation. I was thinking of the many people who have
done work on PCT -- people like Carver, Sheier, etc -- but (prior to CSGNet)
never tried to get involved in a dialog with you and have never seen fit to join
CSGNet when they knew it existed or were even invited to join. Obviously, those
people didn't join CSGNet because they were not really interested in "peer
review" by others who have done work in PCT. They have their own idea about what
PCT is and what they want to do with it and they don't want to deal with
possible criticism of their work. In other words, they are doing work that I
(and I'm sure many of the others on CSGNet) would not call "doing PCT" even
though they would say that they _are_ doing PCT (which, when Carver and Sheier
wrote in 1981 would have stood for Powers' Control Theory). What I meant by my
statement to Rohan was that, since Chery is not on CSGNet (as far as I know) the
Gibsonian (ie. non-PCT) bent of his approach is not surprising. If he were on
CSGNet he would have had to subject his approach to possible (certain?)
criticism, which _might_ have resulted in him doing a thesis that was more
carefully based on PCT.

Ask the Higher Power, Linda. She'll tell you you've put your galosh in your
gob again.

I'll forward all this stuff to Linda. But my guess is that she might suggest
that you clear you own gob with a strong laxative before you start trying to
insert galoshes up mine;-)

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bill Powers (2002.01.28.1537 MSTS)]

Rick Marken (2002.01.28.0915)--

This is what led to my observation. I was thinking of the many people who

have

done work on PCT -- people like Carver, Sheier, etc -- but (prior to CSGNet)
never tried to get involved in a dialog with you and have never seen fit

to join

CSGNet when they knew it existed or were even invited to join. Obviously,

those

people didn't join CSGNet because they were not really interested in "peer
review" by others who have done work in PCT. They have their own idea

about what

PCT is and what they want to do with it and they don't want to deal with
possible criticism of their work. In other words, they are doing work that I
(and I'm sure many of the others on CSGNet) would not call "doing PCT" even
though they would say that they _are_ doing PCT (which, when Carver and

Sheier

wrote in 1981 would have stood for Powers' Control Theory). What I meant

by my

statement to Rohan was that, since Chery is not on CSGNet (as far as I

know) the

Gibsonian (ie. non-PCT) bent of his approach is not surprising. If he were on
CSGNet he would have had to subject his approach to possible (certain?)
criticism, which _might_ have resulted in him doing a thesis that was more
carefully based on PCT.

So all these observations justify the statement that some people who are
not on CSGnet are not doing PCT even when they claim they are, a conclusion
I would not dispute. This does not rule out the likelihood that another
portion of the people who are not on CSGnet _are_ doing PCT, while still
another portion, possibily the majority, don't know that PCT exists and
aren't even trying to do PCT. What I dispute is your implication that being
on CSGnet is a prerequisite to doing PCT science or application and doing
it properly.

"Gob" is a Britishism for "mouth"; hence, galosh in gob = foot in mouth.

Best,

Bill P.

···

Ask the Higher Power, Linda. She'll tell you you've put your galosh in your
gob again.

I'll forward all this stuff to Linda. But my guess is that she might suggest
that you clear you own gob with a strong laxative before you start trying to
insert galoshes up mine;-)

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.28.1540)]

Bill Powers (2002.01.28.1537 MSTS)

What I dispute is your implication that being on CSGnet is a
prerequisite to doing PCT science or application and doing
it properly.

Then I take back that _unintended_ implication. Being on CSGNet is certainly
_not_ a prerequisite to doing PCT science or applications properly. All I
_actually_ said was that I haven't seen an example of this. There certainly may
be people out there doing PCT properly who are not on CSGNet. But I bet that if
such people exist they would be thrilled to discover the existence of CSGNet and
would join immediately (as I would have if CSGNet had existed when I discovered
PCT).

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2002.02.01.1545 CST)]

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.24.0945)]

Is there anyone out there doing basic or applied research based on PCT?
If so, it would sure be nice to hear about what you are doing.

I wonder if there is someone who could assemble a complete bibliography of
NEW current research/writing that is "based on PCT?" As I recall the Web
site does point to an exhaustive list of earlier research and writings.
Here is what I gleaned from the present conversation:

* Stephan Balke: "PCT as a basis to design the school program"
* Samuel Spence Saunders: "Looking at at level 11 perceptions,
particularly as they relate to concepts in what might be called the "self
concept" cluster."
* Isaac Kurtzer: [A topic mentioned off-line?]
* Martin Taylor: "EXPLORING WORK DOMAIN ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES"
* Bill Powers: Current demos and models.
* Gary Cziko: Recent books and articles incorporating PCT concepts.
* Richard Marken: "[A paper writen for HFES which] paper describes my
control model of prescription writing"
* Rohan Lulham reports on two: "the work of Keith Hendy in Canada
applying PCT to military task analysis" and "the Chery masters thesis was
that it was quite biased in that it was to a degree promoting a Gibson
approach over PCT"
* Jeff Vancouver: "my research group is presenting 7 things all based on PCT"
<http://www.psych.ohiou.edu/people/Faculty/Vancouver/vancouver.html&gt;
* Reported earlier work: "Carver, Sheier, ..."

I also found ealier masters theses done under Tom Bourbon, but never had a
chance to read anything beyond the abstracts. I did a study based on
Testing the Self as a Control System. There is also action research done
by the RTP group by people not necessarily subscribed to CSGNet. There
might be a researcher who has independently discovered B:CP or other
writing, but has never found CSGNet. However, I have no intention of
critiquing or "pass/fail"-ing the above works on the critical PCT research
characteristics (CVs, Test, etc.). I may have missed a few contributions.
Mea culpa.

On related conversation:

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.27.1750)]

My experience is that if people are not participating on CSGNet they are
not doing PCT. Of course, just because someone is on CSGNet doesn't mean
that they are necessarily doing PCT. But so far I have seen no exceptions
to the rule that if one is not on CSGNet they are not doing PCT (even if
they say they are). I think the rule holds because CSGNet is a place to
learn and test one's understanding of PCT. People who don't understand
PCT (and think they do) and/or don't want to hear challenges to their
understanding of PCT are not going to join (or stay on) CSGNet.

[Other responses I won't quote, since maybe it seems unnecessary to do so.]

But Rick's question and some [---] responses suggest the need for a check
list, which could be applied to the above-mentioned works in progress:

Is subscribed to CSGNet (evidence exists, Webmaster).
Participates on CSGNet (ample evidence...).
Cites PCT research or theories in writings/research articles.
Writes speculatively about PCT (or other) theories about living organisms.
Does writing (as above) which purports to "extend" PCT (12th level, etc.)
Has summarized/surveyed PCT (with other) theories about living organisms.
Does research which s/he considers PCT-related.
Does research which s/he considers PCT-related, and employs standard
PCT variables and methods, such as CVs and The Test.
Does research which s/he claims employs PCT variables and methods.
Does research (as just above) which major PCT authors disputes as PCT.
Does research (as above) which major PCT authors critique as "tainted"
with another theory (Glasser, Gibson, etc.).
Does research in order to refute PCT theories of living organisms.
Does research that satisfactorily refutes PCT theories of living organisms.

And, oh, one could add/edit this list. The crux is that if a
researcher/writer outside CSGNet has not read B:CP, MSB, or other works, it
seems rather unlikely that s/he would compose a compatible analog--but it's
possible, I suppose. I have been at times fascinated by Goffman, Mead, and
other non-PCT writers and have seen some similarities to the levels and CVs
suggested by Powers and others. But they aren't PCT writers since (thanks,
Rick) they don't use the variables clearly outlined by Powers, and, of
course, The Test. It is fascinating how many authors have come close, but
seriously miss the core concepts.

Maybe this would be a better way to consider the correlation between
subscribing/participating in CSGNet and/or doing PCT research.

Sincerely,

Bryan Thalhammer

[Martin Taylor 2002.02.02 12:00]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2002.02.01.1545 CST)]
... The crux is that if a
researcher/writer outside CSGNet has not read B:CP, MSB, or other works, it
seems rather unlikely that s/he would compose a compatible analog--but it's
possible, I suppose.

At the 1993 CSG meeting, I said that I had discovered that my
"Layered Protocols Theory" for human-computer interaction was only a
specialization of PCT. In fact, I was alerted to the existence of CSG
and PCT by someone who read a comment of mine referring to LPT on the
System Dynamics mailing list, and saw the connection.

I don't know if this counts. since LPT was not a full-fledged PCT.

Martin

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2002.02.02.1540 CST)]

Hi Martin,

I will add it to my unofficial list. In the little checklist, it could be
added as a semi-fledged PCT article or some such. *8-?, Also, the journal
special edition you edited (with Dick Anderson's Testing the Self as a
Control System...) is something I forgot. I have it, just don't remember
the issue number. There were several other PCT articles included.

Cheers,

Bryan

···

[Martin Taylor 2002.02.02 12:00]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2002.02.01.1545 CST)]
... The crux is that if a
researcher/writer outside CSGNet has not read B:CP, MSB, or other works, it
seems rather unlikely that s/he would compose a compatible analog--but it's
possible, I suppose.

At the 1993 CSG meeting, I said that I had discovered that my
"Layered Protocols Theory" for human-computer interaction was only a
specialization of PCT. In fact, I was alerted to the existence of CSG
and PCT by someone who read a comment of mine referring to LPT on the
System Dynamics mailing list, and saw the connection.

I don't know if this counts. since LPT was not a full-fledged PCT.

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2002.02.04.1600)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2002.02.01.1545 CST)]

I wonder if there is someone who could assemble a complete bibliography of
NEW current research/writing that is "based on PCT?"

I think that's a great idea. I hope someone does it!

As I recall the Web
site does point to an exhaustive list of earlier research and writings.

There is a bibliography on the net at

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/csg/documents/bib_williams.html

It purports to be current as of January, 1995 so I'm sure it could be usefully
updated. It also says "Revised May, 2000 but I think that is just when I "html'd"
it. If someone will furnish an updated version, with new references through, say,
Jan. 2002, I'd be willing to spend the time producing a more usefully formatted
web copy.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org