Disposable theory
Nick Marsh has posted a response to my earlier post about the differences between questions and answers research.
For the record, I’m not suggesting ditching the bodies of knowledge, just the labels.
There’s been so much attempting to bolster the results of exploratory research with the gloss of method in the search of answers that I think we’ve started to dismiss the value of questions. More theoretically oriented researchers have seen these attempts as diminishing the value of their more robust work. I don’t think these turf wars are necessary or helpful.
What I’m arguing for is more transparency and reflexivity about what we are doing. The velocity of client innovation work often means that exploratory work is all that’s being funded. By moving the argument about robustness to a resource issue, we can clear the way for light and productive exploratory work that is of value in grounding emerging project-specific theory.
With velocity as a factor, I find disposable project-specific theory more productive than canned theory that I haven’t had time to adapt to the purpose. That’s my preference for working based on my (lack of) ability to process ideas quickly, it’s not a prescription for anyone else!
Has the pendulum swung, is it time to stop selling exploratory research as truth and have a bit of self-confidence in it’s value on it’s own merits?
Comments (0)