Use of Terms & Specialization

Pressures

The taxonomic studies in this website originated from a project where the same word, policy, was being used by different people in the client organisation to refer to very different functions. The end result was confusion, bickering, and failures in achievement.

Another study in the 1980's found that the unconscious identification with different decision methods-PH'1 led managers in organisations to talk past each other.

Something very similar applies in inquiry but the social context is different.

The pressures of work in organizations force managers to interact with each other. Failure to do so would mean collapse of a firm or gross incompetence and waste within a government agency.

Pressures of research often have the opposite effect: scientists who share a discipline or research theme withdraw from those who think and work differently because there is no obvious penalty for doing so. "Research is stressful enough as it is," they reflect, "better to stick with those who think like you and whose work can support yours!"
Worse »

When in positions of power, researchers may actively discriminate against others who use methods that feel alien and seem to them to be unproductive or even invalid. From the elevated viewpoint of a search for Truth, the discipline and ultimately wider society may well be harmed from such attitudes, but any feedback is weak, slow and liable to pass unnoticed.

The end-result is a trend towards increasing specialization and the formation of tribe-like groups whose members talk the same language and value the same one or two methods. Such focus certainly has benefits, but as it becomes more extreme it is likely to impede development of a bigger picture and broader understanding.

Present Challenge

The language of reference for research methods is not adequately systematized and shared. The two groups that give it attention are:

• working scientists—who tend to focus on their own field and inquiry style.
and
• professional philosophers—who argue for a "best" epistemological doctrine.

More

Neither group sets themselves the present taxonomic task which is to objectively and systematically (i.e. scientifically):

• provide an account of all fundamental research methods,
• demonstrate their relationships
• identify personal and social consequences
and then
• place methods in the wider context of the desirable evolution of knowledge;

—all of which exists within an evolution-oriented account of personal functioning.

Who Needs Such Clarity?

Adequate clarity enables communication and mutual understanding.

In this way, it offers a benefit for society via research-related settings like disciplines, institutes, and funding bodies. Ultimately greater self-awareness by all involved in inquiry increases openness to the possibility of mistakes, inhibits inappropriate studies, and enhances receptivity to findings based on lesser-known methods. Potential scholars can benefit as they develop their career.

In a 1982 publication, I applied part of this framework to the condition of health services research in the UK, where I had observed and experienced the issues at first hand.

Because these 7 methods are part of the human condition, none can be abolished.

---

• Back to the review options.

Originally posted: 28-Aug-2015. Last amended 21-Feb-2022.