User:Power.corrupts/Sandbox/The dilemma of rigor or relevance
The dilemma of rigor or relevance has its origins in the social sciences, in particular within the field of action research. The dilemma reflects fundamental disagreements over standard notions of positivist objectivity, in particular values such as distance and non-interference between the researcher and the research subject. The uphelding of rigorous positivist requirements will lead to a loss of usability and therefore relevance, the argument goes. On the other hand, if relevance is the main goal, then some elements of disciplinary rigor will have to be sacrifized. You cannot have both.
It is a dilemma of epistemological practice, of what the (some branches within) social sciences see are the limitations of Technical Rationality.
The dilemma has been an underlying theme in much of the work of Donald Schön and Chris Argyris.
If social scientists tilt toward the rigor of normal science that currently dominates departments of social science in American universities, they risk becoming irrelevant to practitioners' demands for usable knowledge. If they tilt toward the relevance of action research, they risk falling short of prevailing disciplinary standards of rigor. From the action researcher's perspective, the challenge is to define and meet standards of appropriate rigor without sacrificing relevance
— Chris Argyris, On organizational learning p 432 (emphasis added)
See also
edit
- Argyris, Chris (1999). On organizational learning. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 432. ISBN 0631213090.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help)
- Schön, Donald A (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help)
p47 ref to Schein, Glazer, and Simon -- three different approaches to the limitations of Technical Rationality and the related dilemma of rigor or relevance