Dear Jim, dear members of the Research_Practice group

I find Jim's somewhat skeptical comment important and provoking enough to give
it some thought. He indeed addresses a major difficulty faced by the kind of
journal that we are envisaging.

Perhaps we will do well to address this difficulty in some of the early issues
of the journals, so as to stimulate a discussion among readers as to what they
expect from the journal in this regard. Otherwise, the journal might sooner or
later disappoint a good number of its readers.

I think it is equally important, however, to avoid the trap of inadvertently
defining "research practice" in too narrow a way. If we understand it the way
Jim implicitly appears to define it, namely, "research practice = the sum total
of my individual methodological practices that I follow when I am doing
research" (or something of the sort), then we risk losing sight of some of the
most important and interesting issues that confront the practice of research
today. For this reason, I would not want to identify the concern of a research
practice journal with this "behind the scene" kind of issue only.

A second reason is this. If the mentioned focus were the only concern, then
Jim's skeptical response to the proposed "Aims & Scope" of JRP would be quite
devastating. For he is right, of course, that the way researchers actually work
when they are "researching" (a somewhat mythical concept) depends, to a large
extent, on the field in which they are working. This is so because over time,
each field has developed and continues to develop its own specific research
techniques, its own criteria of research excellence, its own discourse patterns,
its own history and research culture, its own aesthetics, etc. Moreover, I am
afraid that research practice in this sense is even highly idiosyncratic, in
that each researcher over time develops his own methodological framework with
which he feels comfortable and which makes him a competent researcher.

How we "practice" research in this concrete sense of "actually doing it" (let me
call this the possible "Methodological Focus I" of JRP) is undoubtedly an
important topic for JRP, but NOT necessarily the only one. I would also argue it
is not desirable that it become the only focus. Let me explain what I mean.

As I see it, there is another core topic for JRP that is just as important.
"Research practice" for me also refers to the way we -- all researchers, inside
and outside Academia -- practice research within a societal and organizational
context. The word "practice" here takes a more philosophical and sociological
sense, in the way Aristotle, Kant, and Foucault (just to mention three
outstanding philosophers of research) were understanding the word. Although
their notions of practice differed in important respects, they shared a focus on
the life-practical (normative, political, etc.) assumptions and consequences of
human practices such as research and action grounded in research.

A lot of important issues immediately come to mind, once we free ourselves from
a narrow understanding of "practice" in the sense of Focus I as "individual
disciplinary procedures" and instead understand the word in its wider
philosophical and societal sense. For instance, what are our underpinning
notions of science and expertise with regard to the role they are playing/ought
to play in our society? What role models do we assume for researchers vis-a-vis
decision-makers? How do we conceive of the function and legitimacy of research
in a democratic society? How do we seek to justify the practical implications
that our research findings and conclusions (and the recommendations we base on
them) may have for third parties? and so on.

These are essential questions related to the practice of research indeed. They
are addressed by disciplines such as philosophy of science, science-theory,
practical philosophy, discourse theory, sociology of science, science and
society studies, history of science, and others; I would also count my own
domain of special interest, critical systems thinking and practice, among the
relevant academic endeavors). Personally, when I am writing about methodological
issues, I tend to understand methodology in this wider sense (we may for the
time being refer to it as a possible "Methodological Focus II" of JRP.)

I would argue that this second type of focus -- or in other words, of core issue
that I would like JRP to take up -- raises the most interesting and urgent
questions related to the practice of research in our epoch. It raises questions
that not only are more fundamental than the ones Jim Carroll, if I read him
correctly, addresses in his comment (because they shape they way we will judge
individual methodological procedures) but also -- and here comes the crucial
point -- are fundamentally the same, and raise the same difficulties, across all
fields of research. This is why I would argue that a well-made, peer-reviewed
Journal of Research Practice does have the potential of developing a
well-defined focus, one that should be important to many reflective researchers
and observers of the academic scene.

Werner Ulrich
______
Werner Ulrich Prof. Dr.rer.pol. (Fribourg), Ph.D. (Berkeley)
Sichelweg 41, CH-3098 Schliern, Switzerland
Email: wulrich@...
Home page: http://www.geocities.com/csh_home/




----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. James J. Carroll, CPA
To: Research_Practice@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:04 PM
Subject: [Research_Practice] Aims & Scope [Discussion]



Here is some feedback on the "Aims & Scope" statement posted recently:

1) Research methods vary widely across research disciplines. While
multi-disciplinary research methodology may be an interesting goal, I am not
sure it is practical. A few examples may illustrate this point:

A) Historical research differentiates between sources of data more than
social science research, within secondary research being significantly inferior
to primary research. I am not sure that researchers of contemporary issues are
as sensitive to that as they should be.

B) With the current US government interest in pharmaceutical research methods
following the VIOXX recall, it may be inappropriate for a journal to claim to
serve that field. Can you image a journal being quoted on the floor of the
Senate by whose law school training did not include any work in statistics?

C) Legal research has certain standards that are applied in the courts. Does
that fit within the scope of this journal as well? Have you ever "sheppardized"
a US legal case?

D) News reporters does research in support of stories. Dan Raher's announced
departure from the CBS Televison network in the US can be traced to bad
research. Is that type of research within the scope of the journal?

2) The training of researchers, as well as the methods, seems to also be
burdened with the issues of diversity noted above.

I may be better to limit the scope to broad areas of the academic disciplines,
and by doing so, admit that the journal cannot "be all things to all
researchers." I hope that I have stimulated others to consider this topic.
Discourse of this will provide the most effective statement of Aim & Scope. I
congratulate Professor Dash for initiating that discourse.

Jim Carroll

Dr. James J. Carroll, CPA
1374 Roger Avenue
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807-1251
(908) 658-4998 Cell (908) 581-7727

Email: drjamesjcarrollcpa@...
________________________________

Research_Practice@yahoogroups.com wrote:

There is 1 message in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. JRP: Aims and Scope
From: DP Dash
________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:53:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: DP Dash

Subject: JRP: Aims and Scope

Dear Research_Practice Friends,

I need your feedback on this.

DP

==
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH PRACTICE:
Innovations and Challenges in Multiple Domains

Aims and Scope

The Journal of Research Practice (JRP) seeks to
develop our understanding of research as a type of
practice, so as to extend and enhance that practice in
the future. The Journal aims to highlight the dynamics
of research practice, as it unfolds in the life of a
researcher, in the growth and decline of a field, and
in relation to a complex social and institutional
environment. The Journal welcomes deliberation on the
basic issues and challenges encountered by researchers
in any specific domain. The Journal aims to explore
why and how different activities, criteria, methods,
and languages become part of research practice in any
domain. This is expected to trigger inter-disciplinary
dialogue, mutual learning, facilitate research
education, and promote innovations in different
fields.

The Journal's scope is not defined in terms of
academic disciplines. It cuts across disciplines and
fields by drawing out the living dimensions of
research unfolding through history, culture, research
communities, professions, and of course the lives of
individual researchers. The Journal seeks to study the
evolving patterns of thinking and practice that
underlie open inquiry in any domain. The scope also
includes topics such as research training, research
design, research utilisation, research policy, and
innovative forms of research.

In order to promote wider participation in these
deliberations, JRP will be published electronically in
the open-access mode.
==

Journal of Research Practice
http://home.ximb.ac.in/~dpdash/JRP.htm
Editors: DP Dash; HR Ponce