Errol, you say that in the debate over agile methods some people fail to put aside their "own paradigm blinkers and seek to find maybe another framework for evaluating the solution". To continue along your line, I would add that both normal science and revolutionary science use the same rigor. Therefore, we have two issues here. (May I mention that my research revolves around occasional failure to identify and separate among issues.) - One is openness to the possibility that there are "other, equally valid and possibly challenging perspectives". - Another one is, that the alternative, potential perspectives should not be based on anecdotes alone, but mostly on scientific methods, which are, in this case, empiric ones. I presume that this segregation is in line with Kuhn's SSR. Hanania Salzer, Tel-Aviv University, School of Education
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Errol Thompson Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 08:02 To: discuss@ppig.org Subject: RE: PPIG discuss: When agile goes bad.... >From a quick look at the article, I would agree with many of its points. However, I would also suggest reading beyond our own domain and I am particularly thinking of Thomas Kuhn's (1996) work on Scientific Revolutions. A key issue there is how our paradigms for our field of research can close us off to other equally valid and possibly challenging perspectives. I don't want to reduce the rigour required in research but neither do I want to discard an alternative paradigm within my field without fully exploring its foundations and understanding whether it has anything to contribute. If I am to do this then I need to be able to put aside some of my own paradigm blinkers and seek to find maybe another framework for evaluating the solution. This what I would contend is not happening in the debate related to agile methods. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
