Dear Research_Practice Colleagues,

Greetings to everyone. I have been busy with organising and
participating in the manuscript review process. In this process, I
have been interacting with many of you.

At this moment, I need to share a few things with the entire
Research_Practice team: (i) Reflections on JRP's editorial focus and
(ii) Rethinking publication options for JRP.


(i) REFLECTIONS ON JRP'S EDITORIAL FOCUS

First, I would like to share two comments from two of our team mates:

** Hector <hponce@...> wrote on 3 Aug 2004:

... When I explain the focus of JRP, I usually say that when one is
doing research, one generally confronts a series of decisions to make
regarding research design, data collection techniques, unexpected
responses, among others. These situations are generally not discussed
when one writes a paper with the respective research findings. So one
should be able to write two papers, one with the findings and the
other discussing the difficulties, unexpected results, contradictions
found in the findings, unwillingness of people to cooperate with the
researcher, etc. Naturally, we are interested in the second type of
contributions.

** Geoff <g.woolcock@...> wrote on 29 Sep 2004:

... not a bad quote for the JRP: "We have a habit in writing articles
published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as
possible, to cover up all the tracks, to not worry about the blind
alleys or describe how you had the wrong idea at first, and so on. So
there isn't any place to publish, in a dignified manner, what you
actually did in order to get to do the work." Richard Feynman in his
Nobel Lecture, 1966.

I think, both these comments capture the spirit of JRP accurately and
brilliantly. I would also like to quote a few lines from some of the
invited contributions we have received (all of which are in draft
form currently). I think, these also shed additional light on the
nature of JRP as an academic initiative:

** [Invited] Satish Saberwal <saberwal@...> (reflecting on the
tensions involved in choosing specific directions of research)
[Draft version] ... There is a tension here [in a particular project
of sociological inquiry], arising in contrary pulls. On one side,
Occam's Razor, the imperative to parsimonious explanation, avoiding
needless complexity; on the other, the imperative to look for links
between that which is observable, the phenotypic level, and that
which leads to the observable -- phenomena that generate the
observable -- the genotypic level. Reasons for acting one way or
the other can be given on both sides. How one resolves the contrary
pulls will frame the course of the particular enquiry; so there is
room for multiple perspectives -- which should yet be reconcilable,
so long as we respect the rules of the game, the evolving canon of
critical scholarship in the field, ...

** [Invited] Paul Grobstein <pgrobste@...> (reflecting on
what is necessary to revitalise science)
[Draft version] ... The needed 'critical perspective turned on
itself' for science thus is necessarily also a rethinking of the role
of science in culture and hence of culture itself. It cannot be
achieved without a very substantial blurring of the borders between
those who think of themselves as 'scientists' and those who think of
themselves as something else. And the rethinking will, I believe,
inevitably result in a further blurring of those borders in such a
way as to make science an even more important contributor to the
human culture of which it is a part.

** [Invited] Ananta K Giri <ananta@...>, Editorial team member
(reflecting on the importance of researcher's learning and self-
cultivation)
[Draft version] ... At the ripe age of eighty when he [Gandhi] was
traveling from village to village and trying to calm the fire of
communal violence in riot-torn Noakhali, he was devoting an hour
everyday to learning the alphabets of the language of the locality,
Bengali. It is this passion for learning and self-cultivation which
can make us humble and rescue us from the danger of using our
knowledge, including the knowledge generated out of our research...

I think, the above reflections indicate some important dimensions of
the project JRP has launched. Borrowing from these comments, I think
it is correct to say that JRP seeks to serve researchers' need for
appreciating what shapes the course of inquiry in a specific domain,
for learning to develop a critical perspective on their own practice
as researchers, and for making sure that every research-like
engagement triggers transformations which are also meaningful for
researcher-the-person.

These are only indicative of the spirit behind JRP. I am sure, these
will trigger many thoughts in your minds. From an operational point
of view, these reflections will help us generate more submissions for
JRP, and also help us engage more effectively with manuscripts, when
we are reading them as reviewers.


(ii) RETHINKING PUBLICATION OPTIONS FOR JRP

Héctor and I have been discussing the option of publishing JRP as a
free online journal. I remember, many of you had suggested this
option while we were deliberating on this issue in the past. As the
launch date approaches, we realise the enormity of this project and
the continued effort required to keep it going. All this will amount
to nothing if the product of this labour remains confined in select
libraries of wealthy universities. As this realisation grows
stronger, following the conventional publication route seems
increasingly uninteresting. What is your opinion? Of course,
occasional compilations of published articles can be brought out as
books, through the conventional channel.

The essential costs involved registering a Website and maintaining
the contents (with professional help) may not be too high. My
technological advisor suggests that the Website should be hosted from
a place where 100% availability can be assured. If you have any
specific suggestion on this or any related matter, please feel free
to share.

DP