Blank
From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.10.0943) ]
Purpose: I would like to address certain concerns I have about both the Researcher vs. Practitioner, and Phenomena vs. model entity and process questions with this post for your consideration. I have never seen these topics addressed on this net and I think we need to think about them. In this post I am not offering any specific recommendations to CSG net, only some thoughts and questions. I do not want to get into any discussions about this at the current time. I am working on presenting my ideas shortly. I noticed the thread on Applied PCT and felt that at this point it might be a good idea to post this. I am presenting this for the purposes of generating thoughts and ideas. I would love to say that these are my original ideas, but they are not, these can all be found in the works of Chris Argyris. Someone you will be hearing a great deal about on this net from me in upcoming posts. I end the post with some possible suggestions and my thoughts on the matter. 
Researcher -> Practitioner relationship. There are issues that need to be considered when a practitioner wants to utilize a social theory and/or a researcher wants to be a practitioner. There are many overlapping interests of both camps and some exclusive to each one. I would like to explore this area because I believe it is important to the future of this list and important for both the researchers ( i.e. Bill, Rick, Kenneway, et. al ) and practitioners ( i.e. Fred N., Ken K, Ed Ford, et.al ) not only communicate but help inform each other in the development of both PCT theory and any PCT “applications”. This is not an easy thing to do. I present the current thread on Applied PCT and former interactions on this net as evidence of this claim.
Research gives rise to special expertise that Everett Hughes (1959) called “esoteric knowledge”. The relationship between researchers and practitioners is governed by “The Veblenian Bargain” ( Schon, 1983 ); From the practitioners, their problems, from the researchers, the expert knowledge whose application to those problems enables practitioners to solve them in a professional way. This view takes one of two forms
-
Research-based theory
-
Expert intuition
Each one of these leads to difficulties.
When researchers see themselves mainly as sources of research-based knowledge, their interactions with practitioners is likely to be rejection or dependency is the likely outcome if practitioners pick-up the experts esoteric knowledge and become “little social scientists”, who use fragments of the theory as ritual clichés, floating, without palpable connection to the ways in which work is actually done. An example on this net might be the practitioners notion of the hierarchy and how it actually “works”. Rejection is a likely outcome if practitioners question how well the theory fits practice. Do I need to go into this notion?
The conventional model of expert-practitioner interaction ignores the PRACTITIONERS inquiry, their own theories and ways of reasoning or testing ideas. What a practitioner already knows is ignored, just as conventional models of good teaching ignore the students spontaneous understandings. How then, is a practitioner’s capability for inquiry thought to be enhanced as a result of interaction with a research-based expert? I have found this to be the case on this net. The RTP coercion debate comes to mind.
Researchers strive for “Covering Laws”, Practitioners strive for “Casual tracing”. Both are not mutually exclusive. They overlap, but each has some unique and important qualities.
Probabilistic Covering Laws may be inferred from data provided by either of two empirical methods: 1) Contrived experiment 2) Natural experiment. In both cases researchers try to determine whether values of the effect variables are uniquely determined by values of the cause variables, relying on one or more of Mill’s methods: Agreement ( x is regularly followed by y ), Difference ( without x no y ), or Concomitant Variations ( variations in x are regularly followed by analogous variations in y) ( Mill, 1843 ). Researchers also try to maintain “research distance” so as not to be affected by subjects biases and not to contaminate the data. They usually avoid subjects “intentions”. This last point fortunately is completely untrue about PCT research. We understand that “intentions” are the main focus of our research. This also holds true for practitioners who concern themselves with “design causality” all day long. Design causality is the causal relation that connects an actors “intentions” (purposes) to the action he/she designs in order to realize that interaction. Translated to PCT speak; An actor will “create” perceptions to realize their goals and reduce error. This to explain ( to themselves or others ) the cause of an action in terms of design causality, we ( meaning all of us )describe the reasoning that led up to the action, not the reasoning by which that action might be justified after the fact.
The general covering laws established through normal social science tend to have little utility in practice because of the characteristic representation of a covering law. The functional relationships of variables that result from normal-research tend to be precise, quantitative, probabilistic, abstract, and complex, making it difficult for practitioners to form images of research results that can be used to guide action in a particular local context. This is true of PCT. For example, how would a practitioner “understand” the workings of the input function in the model? Or the transformations and integrations that take place between levels in the hierarchy? These are difficult questions. Practitioners test their causal inferences by determining whether they can use them to get design results they intend and like.
The normal social-science model of causal inference aims at generalizability: It employs general cause and effect variables and calls for observations of multiple instances in which those variables take on different values. The practitioners model of causality is situation- specific. It deals with named phenomena that need not ( and usually don’t ) take the form of general, quantifiable variables.
The question becomes how do Practitioners and Researchers work together, given their differences in perspective, but overlapping interests.
A recommendation: Research should join practitioners ( T. Bourbon, to his credit attempted this ) and extend the research function by helping practitioners extend and enhance the inquiry they already know how to carry out.
For researchers who hope to produce knowledge useful to practitioners, the implications are straightforward. Those researchers should join with practitioners who seek to promote productive learning and to understand the nature of their own learning process and systems. The researchers should try to discover what practitioners already know to do and to learn to appreciate the inquiry in which practitioners are already engaged, including the questions they know to do and to learn to appreciate the inquiry in which practitioners are already engaged, including the questions they know how to ask and the knowing-in- action they may take for granted and be unable to describe. Researchers should help discover the hidden rationalities that are often built into everyday practice. ( an example of this being the “I see you have chosen …” question in RTP ) The productive forms of pattern causality of which practitioners themselves are often unaware. Extending the research the research function and enhance the inquiry of practitioners on discovering how they get stuck and what dilemmas underlie their getting stuck: How the same patterns of action ( thought ) that lead to success may also, on occasion, lead to failure; How practitioners can learn from failure; how they can become aware of counterintuitive effects masked by their perhaps tacit, background models: How they can reflect on and explore the impediments to productive learning.
Argyris goes on to explain ways of limiting and reducing certain problems associated with collaborative research including appropriate rigor for collaborative research. I believe that this is important. I believe the whole concept of researcher informing practitioner and practitioner informing researcher is absolutely vital for PCT research.
PCT informs us on why Action Science as proposed and utilized by Argyris works and probably more important informs us of why it does not work in certain situations ( acknowledged by Argyris without either any understanding or misunderstanding of why). I intend on using Argyris’ work to investigate the 3 ( at least with my current thinking ) upper levels of the hierarchy. I am absolutely convinced this is possible. So`far Bill’s hierarchy and model seem to look extremely good using solid empirical data. And I don’t mean tracking experiments either.
Marc
(Attachment Blank Bkgrd9.gif is missing)
