Conditions of Inquiry

Everyday Inquiry v Specialist Inquiry

Everyone engages in inquiry-RL2 in their endeavours, typically prior to taking action-RL1: e.g. to check a bus schedule, to plant a garden, when buying a car, before investing &c. Even if sometimes skipped and often performed perfunctorily, inquiring and a sense of the necessity for knowledge are natural and spontaneous.

Taxonomic frameworks deal with the universals of personal functioning. So within the Primary Hierarchies, there is minimal distinction between common or everyday functioning and specialist or professional functioning.

The professional concern in any Domain of Functioning manifests in the way the Domain Controls are used. Controls are found within the 6th Level of the Primary Hierarchy in the Principal Typology and its derivative frameworks. Just as a manager who is a specialist in achievement via action (RL1/PH1) becomes preoccupied with decision methods (PH'1), so a specialist in knowledge via inquiry (RL2/PH2) is preoccupied with research methods (PH'2).

The hallmark of professional or specialist inquiry is a concern to maximize precision and validity while reducing uncertainty to manageable levels.

Specialist inquiry is required for many purposes:

  • to increase the effectiveness of a business
  • to determine the cause of a serious accident
  • to discover where responsibility lies for a crime
  • to handle a public controversy
  • to audit expenditures
  • to advance an academic discipline

Specialist inquiry requires professional training in research methods, which often includes learning to use and develop sophisticated technology. Much that may be referred to as «research», is not necessarily «scientific».

ClosedWhen is an Inquiry just a Story?

Many so-called "investigations" in the public domain—in books, magazines, newspapers, television, blogs—do not reveal a primary concern for validity or certainty. Instead, they are driven by the desire to publish something and entertain.

Inquiry-RL2 is part of every endeavour-RHK and elements of inquiry-PH2 are always activated in such productions e.g. the writers wonder, make observations, offer comparisons, set up relations, make judgements, offer analyses &c.

However, by promoting what is published as 'research', 'investigation', 'a survey', 'new findings', 'discovery' &c, what is written is implicitly or explicitly claimed to be knowledge and deserving of prestige and acceptance. The output often feeds on and satisfies pressures for certainty. But the quality of the knowledge is highly variable, often being no more than a self-serving rationalization or speculation.

Even if the author claims academic credentials, when money is involved, it is safer to regard the output as a story or narrative. Such a public presentation is built around opinion and values, deliberately and expediently including or ignoring evidence to suit the needs of the author and/or publisher (and their audience). Such activity has value, but it usually belongs within the Communication Domain (RL5), not the Inquiry Domain (RL2).

THEE Note:Closed  The twin concerns of conviction and consensus appear as the approach duality within the Inquiry TET, and as the executing duality within the Communication TET.

Practical Inquiry v Scientific Inquiry

Specialist inquiry occurs with one of two orientations:

• for practical purposes i.e. to support effectiveness in performance;
• for scientific purposes i.e. to advance knowledge for all to benefit.

Science is about growing a body of knowledge that stands the test of time and is given social value. Social value relates mostly to usefulness, which typically involves increasing control over the environment and ensuring desired outcomes. While the value of science is ultimately (but unpredictably) practical, it can also be sustained for other values like: aesthetics, freedom, understanding.

Scientific inquiry is characterized by an application of curiosity in regard to what is puzzling or mysterious. Its output is oriented towards:

  • generalization
  • systematization
  • evolution of a corpus

Scientific inquiry differs from specialist practical inquiry in requiring:

  • removal or exposure of biases and conflicts of interest
  • acknowledgement of previous relevant findings
  • identification of possible errors or alternatives
  • multiple replications to confirm, modify or refute findings
  • willing sharing of results, methods and data
  • dispassionate disregard for customs or popular beliefs
  • an avoidance of hype or exaggeration.

Insofar as publication, grants and social approval are necessary for career advancement, pressures are brought to bear on scientists that interfere with realization of this ideal. Failures do not invalidate the ideal but should, instead, stimulate an improvement in standards and regulatory procedures.
ClosedMore

Much specialist inquiry cannot be categorized as scientific even if the research methods used are similar in style to those of scientists. This is because investigations are driven pragmatically and socially. There is little room for curiosity, generalization or systematization. Often secrecy or confidentiality are required. Investigations are typically subject to a range of intrinsic pressures that compromise validity and diminish certainty.
ClosedExamples

However, scientific research can and does occur within large corporations and government agencies.

Clarification of scientific inquiry is a focus in this satellite. However, in establishing the primary elements, my orientation is to inquiry by anyone. We are all subject to pressures for certainty and we all need knowledge for our endeavours. Science will come fully into focus when the research methods (PH'2) are studied.

Originally drafted: 13-May-2015. Last amended 21-Feb-2022.