Research needs to begin with a question (says just about everybody) but I'm not so sure. My own research, for example, is not question-focused at all. I don't begin with a problem that needs to be solved, an unknown that needs to be analyzed. That doesn't mean my research couldn't be framed that way, it's just to say that I don't approach it that way. My research is much more like a creative act. I form a concept in my mind of information flows and systems and experiences, and then I try to replicate that in code. Typically, the results of that have been useful. So I find the methodology, described here by David T. Jones, to be less useful than most. It's not so easy to place it in an "important theoretical or conceptual setting." It's not about behaviour change or outcomes. It's not so easy to state why it's important. It's a process of instantiating my epistemology in physical form. These creative acts (for I expect to see other epistemologies in physical form; mine need not be the only correct one) form a tapestry in which we learn and create. That's all I need to motivate my research. It's an act of helping others to do better, which for me is intrinsically justifiable, and needs no external foundation.
Today: 0 Total: 1103 [Direct link] [Share]
