Multilectic methods of inquiry

Multilectic methods of inquiry The specialists' ‘scientific’ methods of inquiry have come under increasing attack as overly deterministic, incapable of dealing with elusive and ambiguous phenomena, inappropriately focused on what is rather than what can be, and less powerful in dealing with strategic rather than tactical issues. One way of finding relief from these problems is to adopt more holistic and intuitive approaches (22,26). Another is to simultaneously use more than one method of inquiry in the hope that the strengths of one perspective will help illuminate and compensate for weaknesses or gaps in others. The advantage of multiple methods is that together they may expand the scope of inquiry and the complexity of problem representations and solutions. A basic question, however, is whether (or how) it is possible for the single individual to suspend the categorizing of normal perception and use genuinely different modes of inquiry. This question is discussed in terms of debate in the philosophy of science between Popper (25), Kuhn (17,18), Feyerabend (14,15), and Toulmin (31). The original draft of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, August 1978. I have profited from several people's comments on that draft, especially Richard Mason's, and from the advice of several anonymous reviewers. The paper ultimately suggests that the very discussion of alternative modes of scientific inquiry and the nature of human perception increases our ability to use more than one mode of inquiry successfully. A set of rules for what is called ‘multilectic’ (‘multi-lensed’) approaches is outlined. Multilectic methods of inquiry can be of great importance to those interested in human systems management. They offer a complex way of creating and representing knowledge about complex and even incommensurate situations. Of particular importance is the emphasis on using one perspective to illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of others. This feature offers a way of bridging between (though not always synthesizing) logical, rational, sequential and quantitative (LRSQ) ways of understanding management situations, and perceptive, intuitive, simultaneous and qualitative (PISQ) ways of looking at the same issue (33). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Systems Management IOS Press

Multilectic methods of inquiry

Human Systems Management, Volume 2 (2) – Jan 1, 1981

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ios-press/multilectic-methods-of-inquiry-uy0839FsA0
Publisher
IOS Press
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by IOS Press, Inc
ISSN
0167-2533
eISSN
1875-8703
DOI
10.3233/HSM-1981-2204
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The specialists' ‘scientific’ methods of inquiry have come under increasing attack as overly deterministic, incapable of dealing with elusive and ambiguous phenomena, inappropriately focused on what is rather than what can be, and less powerful in dealing with strategic rather than tactical issues. One way of finding relief from these problems is to adopt more holistic and intuitive approaches (22,26). Another is to simultaneously use more than one method of inquiry in the hope that the strengths of one perspective will help illuminate and compensate for weaknesses or gaps in others. The advantage of multiple methods is that together they may expand the scope of inquiry and the complexity of problem representations and solutions. A basic question, however, is whether (or how) it is possible for the single individual to suspend the categorizing of normal perception and use genuinely different modes of inquiry. This question is discussed in terms of debate in the philosophy of science between Popper (25), Kuhn (17,18), Feyerabend (14,15), and Toulmin (31). The original draft of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, August 1978. I have profited from several people's comments on that draft, especially Richard Mason's, and from the advice of several anonymous reviewers. The paper ultimately suggests that the very discussion of alternative modes of scientific inquiry and the nature of human perception increases our ability to use more than one mode of inquiry successfully. A set of rules for what is called ‘multilectic’ (‘multi-lensed’) approaches is outlined. Multilectic methods of inquiry can be of great importance to those interested in human systems management. They offer a complex way of creating and representing knowledge about complex and even incommensurate situations. Of particular importance is the emphasis on using one perspective to illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of others. This feature offers a way of bridging between (though not always synthesizing) logical, rational, sequential and quantitative (LRSQ) ways of understanding management situations, and perceptive, intuitive, simultaneous and qualitative (PISQ) ways of looking at the same issue (33).

Journal

Human Systems ManagementIOS Press

Published: Jan 1, 1981

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off