From: Jansen, Erik [mailto:
EJansen@nps.navy.mil]
A theoretical point of departure for this is Robert Merton's work on
norms
and counter-norms among scientists, which he published under the heading
of
"sociological ambivalence". His research tends to be descriptive rather
than prescriptive. Ambivalence is created as the dominant scientific
norms
of openness and public sharing of information may be viewed as existing
in
something of a dialectical relationship with norms of secrecy and
privacy.
(Remember Newton keeping the calculus to himself.) Unless reward
systems
fit a collaborative model, it would be folly to be prematurely open with
those whose trustworthiness is in doubt. Natural scientists often keep
laboratory notebooks as evidence of priority; perhaps a networked
community
of practice might serve something of the same purpose.
Erik Jansen
Department of Information Sciences
School of Operational & Information Sciences
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA 93943
-----Original Message-----
From: Ancheri Sreekumar [mailto:
sreeancheri@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 7:13 AM
To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Openness versus Confidentiality in Research
This question from one of my PhD students is also specifically in the
context of our electronic discussion group, where I have been asking my
PhD
students to openly share their progress including their seminar
presentations and in future even their chapters of their dissertations
while
they write them. This gives them the opportunity to obtain feedback from
a
wider collective enhancing the quality and validity of their research
contributions.
According to me, if not in the past but definitely in future, research
is
going to be a collective activity and an individual's contribution is
going
to be organically embedded in the collective. Hence, the PhD programme
has
also to become a training ground for contributing by being embedded in a
collective.
A minority amongst the academic community might misuse it as feared by
my
student. According to me, the chances of such misuse will, in fact, come
down if the work in progress is freely and widely available in open
space.
As far as those who value their research for its contribution to
knowledge
rather than just their own career are concerned, such openness will
ensure
efficiency enhancement by not replicating work done earlier or
elsewhere.
I am posting this to globeindia discussion group too as it is involved
in
collective research work.
A. Sreekumar.
Professor and Dean, Faculty of Management Studies and
Coordinator, Tourism Studies Group, Goa University, Goa, INDIA 403206
----- Original Message -----
From: Purva Govind HegdeDesai <
purva35@rediffmail.com>
To: <
goauniversitymanagementphd@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: [goauniversitymanagementphd] a query about research
Hello,
I had asked Prof.Sreekumar a question about work in progress in
research.
The question is a FAQ (Frequently Asked Question) in research.
'Should
I hide my Research Work in Progress, the hypothesis, the fieldwork, the
findings, with the fear that it may be copied? Worse still, if anyone
copies
my research and concludes it faster than me, could I be accused of
copying
him when I finish? How do I keep my work a little original if I share my
work in progress?
Sir, could you please write down your reply?
Purva.