From Greg Williams (931021)
Rick Marken (931020.0930) [on HFers]
My impression is that they use the word "control" in the same ambiguous
way it is used by most behavioral scientists. Sometimes they use it
to mean "influence" and sometimes they use it to mean what it really
means -- to produce a specified result regardless of prevailing
disturbances to that result.
I was attempting to obtain some evidence on when they mean one thing
and when they mean another. I just thought that you could help me on
that.
But who cares what they mean anyway?
Bill Powers, for one (see below).
If any of those people actually are intrested in
understanding control then they'll come to us.
Not if they find you incoherent due to misunderstandings of the meanings
of terms.
Tom Bourbon [931020.1457]
Greg, what do you think of the following idea? You seem to have a clearer
grasp than some of the others of us (unnamed here) of similarities
between models and terminology in traditional human factors and PCT.
) of similaritiesI have my hypothesis about a possible source of difficulties in
communication between PCTers and HFers, but I don't have much evidence upon
which to judge the worth of the hypothesis.
Why
don't you do a short article for a mainstream human factors journal. Lay out
what you think are the points of agreement, then carefully translate, in
both directions, the key terms you think are misunderstood by either side.
The article need not be long. It might go a long way toward assuring that
the bridge is built and the two halves meet in the middle, or anywhere else
for that matter.
I like this idea. But preliminary to translation, I would need to learn
about the meanings of key words used by HFers, in THEIR terms. I think that
this could be done efficiently (given that first-person reports from Rick
"Who Cares?" Marken and you are not forthcoming), by sending questionnaires
to HFers who (1) appear to be using PCT-type models and (2) have INTERNET
addresses. I propose that I attempt to identify a number of such individuals
by perusing the recent HF literature over the next few weeks, and then that
you and I (and Rick, if he can come to see any merit in this) collaborate on
generating questionnaires. Since you have free outgoing e-mail (I guess) and
I don't, you could locate addresses and send the questionnaires. Together,
we would interpret the results and write a paper as you suggest above. I
think such a paper might be very helpful for generating interest in PCT
within the HF community.
Inadequately yours,
Not any more, since you have proposed an potentially very adequate
alternative to your first-person report which I earlier found so inadequate.
Thanks!
Bill Powers (931020.1215 MDT)
Greg, I think what you're apparently trying to do is a good thing
-- getting the general objections to the Human Factors (HF)
approach converted to specific chapters and verses. I, too, would
like to see specific quotations from the literature that reveal
differences in the concept of control. That would be more
valuable than generalizations that aren't accompanied by specific
evidence.
It's not always easy to get evidence in such a form. When you're
in the midst of a group of people and are receiving a generally
hostile treatment, the reason for the hostility isn't often made
crisp and clear.
I hope that you will provide input to the questionnaire-making, if
Tom accepts my proposal above. It is my belief that we could find a way
to mute, if not completely eliminate, the hostility, by asking in the
questionnaires for clarification of the HFers' own notions, rather than
preaching to them as PCT missionaries. I doubt that we'll be entirely
successful, but with your aid, maybe we'll make a start on resolving
some misunderstandings.
Martin Taylor 931020 19:10
I have been asked by the editor of the International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies to guest edit an issue devoted to PCT. He has allowed me control
of the form and content of the issue, and to some extent its size. I do
not at present know what the issue will contain, or when it will appear
(but see below).
...
I have already invited contributions from a few potential authors, and
will invite more. This note is a blanket invitation for anyone who thinks
that they or someone they know might appropriately contribute a
paper. What I would like is a BRIEF (1 page max) proposal for a paper,
suggesting what the paper might contribute to the issue, and indicating
something of the content. I'm not looking for abstracts, and it is
not necessary that the proposer be the author. You can propose that
someone else should be invited to contribute a paper.
An invitation to contribute is not a guarantee of publication. Completed
papers will be reviewed as usual.
If you ever want to submit an uninvited paper to IJMMS, you can submit it
to the editor in the ordinary way. If he thinks it might be appropriate
for this issue, I'm sure he will pass it along. But for now, I would
prefer to see short proposals on the basis of which I can issue invitations,
rather than full papers.
Timing: I do not know when the issue will be put together, but I am
currently targeting the end of 1994. I hope that authors will be able
to circulate drafts of their papers before the 1994 Durango meeting,
and that some editorial modification can be done collegially during the
meeting, to help make a unified issue.
Sounds great, Martin.
Tom, want to give it a try? I suppose that if we submitted a paper along
the lines I propose above, you could still submit a longer paper, as well.
Martin, would you want to publish only one paper from a given author in
your issue? If so, and if Tom wants to submit a paper on a topic other than
the HF-PCT meaning problems, I would suggest that we try to get the latter
published elsewhere.
As ever,
Greg