Systematic questioning- Give yourself a structure to ask with:
Whether actively in the design process, in the evaluation process, in the research process, the writing process, broadened thinking and practice in thinking systematically are imperative.
Sociologist Robert Merton, and Philosopher Karl Popper- two of the most important promoters of science and share with us a deep understanding of what scientific ideal the ideal of rationality is, and they are the ideals of knowing modern society has been based on, often failed in implementation, they are design specifications for much of what is best in the world around us: There are two basic things to remember in critical inquiry skepticism/disloyalty/flexibility and excitement/communalism which support each other: (a) your perspective is not TRUE simply because you believe it, rationality is disloyalty to your position in the face of potential new evidence, the core ideal of scientific and critical inquiry is acceptance that one CAN be wrong and despite investment of time and effort in the past knowledge is built on yesterdays mistakes; (b) secondly, the importance of the project of knowing and questioning should be exciting, interesting, pleasant even if you can be wrong, and in part being part of the building of knowledge is the reward.
1) Where do you consider the subject of your questioning fits into the world? Define the social and technical world in which you are analyzing?
2) How would the inquiry look if the scale was: global, local, specific, institutional, market driven, of public benefit from? Can you imagine what limits your perspective? Consider where you see this subject in the world?
3) Who are the stakeholders involved in making, using, interacting, financing, researching? Who are the authors, decision makers, and regulators of the subject of inquiry? What Interests, entrenched beliefs, values, and
4) What are the technical components participating at the each scale of questioning already, what technical interventions have been attempted (failed or successful)?
Whether actively in the design process, in the evaluation process, in the research process, the writing process, broadened thinking and practice in thinking systematically are imperative.
Sociologist Robert Merton, and Philosopher Karl Popper- two of the most important promoters of science and share with us a deep understanding of what scientific ideal the ideal of rationality is, and they are the ideals of knowing modern society has been based on, often failed in implementation, they are design specifications for much of what is best in the world around us:
There are two basic things to remember in critical inquiry skepticism/disloyalty/flexibility and excitement/communalism which support each other: (a) your perspective is not TRUE simply because you believe it, rationality is disloyalty to your position in the face of potential new evidence, the core ideal of scientific and critical inquiry is acceptance that one CAN be wrong and despite investment of time and effort in the past knowledge is built on yesterdays mistakes; (b) secondly, the importance of the project of knowing and questioning should be exciting, interesting, pleasant even if you can be wrong, and in part being part of the building of knowledge is the reward.
1) Where do you consider the subject of your questioning fits into the world?
Define the social and technical world in which you are analyzing?
2) How would the inquiry look if the scale was: global, local, specific, institutional, market driven, of public benefit from? Can you imagine what limits your perspective? Consider where you see this subject in the world?
3) Who are the stakeholders involved in making, using, interacting, financing, researching? Who are the authors, decision makers, and regulators of the subject of inquiry? What
Interests, entrenched beliefs, values, and
4) What are the technical components participating at the each scale of questioning already,
what technical interventions have been attempted (failed or successful)?
For each resource, stakeholder, reference