Dear Friends,

I present a rough model to talk about a variety of research practice:

--
Taking research as a multi-agent process:

Each agent can "tune" itself on a continuum:
very passive (observing) <--> very active (intervening)

When all participating agent are "tuned" at the very passive
(or observing) end, we get only observations.

In a certain type of world, the observations crystallise and
we get classical scientific objects.

If that does not happen, the agents tune themselves "up":
towards a little interpretation and evaluation.

Some interpretations get preferred and the process may "lock in."

Given the lock-in, the agents come "down" to observations again (e.g., widows
become visible inside a culture)

If that kind of lock-in does not happen, the agents tune
themselves up again: towards choice, diversity, etc.

This calls for "coordination."

If effective coordination happens, then the collective forgets
the differences and gets on with whatever is interesting.

If the coordination does not happen, the agents tune themselves
"up" once again: towards mentoring, educating, enabling,
empowering, etc.

This calls for self-observation and facilitation.

If this happens effectively, we get self-observing collectives
(or self-organising collectives)

Otherwise, the agents tune up again...
--

Does it make sense? I welcome your comments.

DP
--