When a group of experts is engaged in decision-making, war gaming, brain storming, and discussions to find a solution to a research problem, the approach often taken is the consensus rather individuals acting independently;or conformity? Thus, lack of an individual's creativity creativity;or a sense of individual responsibility is suppressed and left out to most domineering argumentative individuals in the group?
Perhaps this alternative can help:
https://rhizomenetwork.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/near-consensus-alternatives-consensus-oriented-decision-making-2/
Best regards,
Debra
Dear Mutambo,
What you have said can possibly and inadvertently pollute the research outcome and ruin the notion of generalizability. In qualitative research, the researcher or the group of experts involved in the interpretation of data may adopt an etic perspectivization imposing their personal views on the outcome. Consequently, an emic approach is advocated since it allows researchers to look at the topic from the eyes of the insiders, those who have been scrutinized in research. Personal maneuvers and individualistic deliberations have no place in objective research.
Best regards,
R. Biria
I think etic or emic approaches both are equally liable to the vagaries of what I may call "brute subjectivity". The experts commitment to research ethics, and the cause of scholarship would still count a lot.
In social science research how can a researcher eliminate group-think problem?
Think can consider the following:
Thanx Han, these suggestions are quite useful and are bound to enable a researcher break group think.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science