Background to the Inquiry Satellite

Initial Investigations

Inquiry was an early topic of interest because I had engaged in disparate research projects using a variety of methods within different academic settings. I wanted to understand more precisely what I was doing. Churchman and Mitroff’s work on inquiring systems Churchman, C. West. The Design of Inquiring Systems. New York: Basic Books, 1971. interested me, especially because it revealed an unmistakable parallel to the decision systems [PH'1].

I tackled the elements of inquiry initially, identifying 5 Levels and writing these up for publication.  Churchman was the referee for Systems Research who approved the paper: Measurement and the Structure of Scientific Analysis (1985). It is now evident that these Levels are part of a Primary Hierarchy and errors have been identified.
Download

I subsequently concluded that Churchman’s 5 «Inquiring Systems» were correct, being both beautifully described and spontaneously or intuitively placed in a THEE-style order [PH'2:L1-L5]. I was then able to add two additional systems [PH’2-L6 & L7]—required following the discovery of two more Levels in the Primary Hierarchy. This work was also published by Systems Research in 1988.

Much later it became evident that these systems are part of a Principal Typology and re-ordering was required to fit observations of the Q-expansion structure.
Download

Critique & Amendents

Further Taxonomic Inquiries

In preparing this material for posting, I needed to update previous work to accommodate taxonomic principles developed over the past decades. This fostered revisions of formulations and a review of the names used. The new investigation fell into two parts:

■ Development of the Primary Hierarchy-PH2 in terms of:

• the Tree-PH2K, which is the vehicle for all inquiry
• the Structural hierarchy-PsH2, which is the desired effect of any inquiry
• the Structural hierarchy Tree-PsH2K, which is the field of inquiry.

■ Development of the Principal Typology-PH'2 in terms of:

• the TET analysis, which provides a deeper understanding of similarities and differences amongst the Types.
  
• the Spiral-PH'2C, which develops on the TET and provides the primal means to meet the primal need of the Inquiry Domain, which is taken to be knowledge.
  
• the Spiral-derived Tree-PH'2CK, which reveals the determinants of knowledge and interactions amongst these.
• two further frameworks are also implied: the Spiral-derived Structural Hierarchy-PH'2CsH, and the Spiral-derived Structural Hierarchy Tree-PH'2CsHK.

■ Development of the PH'2Q-expansion as Arenas of Knowing.

Terms with Multiple References

Terms get their preferred meaning (reference) within the method followed by the speaker. Often the term is defined for a particular paper and not expected to be more widely adopted.

As a result, common research terms—like theory, theorizing, model, fact, logic, reason, system—may be used by researchers with significantly different implications.

Confusions result from:

• actual affinities between methods (as demonstrated later in the TET analysis);
• terms becoming fashionable, often due to a celebrity scientist or philosopher;
• expedience, carelessness or misunderstanding by the speaker.

My published papers were written to be understood by the systems science community. I must now re-articulate them to accord with taxonomic principles and to assist generalist readers. I do not claim that my allocation of terms is ideal, so suggestions for improvement are welcome.

I do not wish to inhibit preferred usage by practising scientists. What I hope to encourage is an appreciation of the taxonomic class of research method in use, and show how knowing is more complex than conventional wisdom allows.

---

• Distinguish ordinary, specialist and scientific inquiry.
• See the THEE path.
• Preview the inquiry into Inquiry-RL2.
• More about terminology.

Originally drafted: 21-May-2015. Last amended: 21-Feb-2022.