Dear Andrea Gaggioli 

I mainly agree with what you say.  But when you say "sometimes researchers' questions are more open-ended and abstract" [and] "may tend to include more 'unstructured' knowledge", this should NOT excuse not being able to find some common ground in addressing the particular questions.  There is no good excuse for lack of common ground. The reason lack of common ground exists is:  lack of direct empiricism (incl. observations and inter-rater reliabilities AND a clear history of such informing our understanding of the nature of internal representation via the various memory capacities).  One major type of thinking antithetical to good, empirical  science is the notion of embedded/embodied/enacted WITHOUT also significant "embedding" IN THE ENVIRONMENT (present) in EACH significant instance of learning (including that which occurs for major qualitative developments AND ALL SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS). 

It is beyond belief to me that a trend to theorize regarding embedded/embodied etc. is not accompanied by always MORE and MORE clear "embedding" with and in the environment -- this is simply a presumptuous break with empiricism (AND it's due to faulty, untested pseudo-assumptions) and is not in any way justified.  Until and unless the "embedded" theorists (researchers?) always show some corresponding increase in the embedded-ness of significant behaviors within the environment, all we have is a grand fiction of some important behavioral developments occurring ONLY IN/ JUST WITH the mind itself, i.e. ONLY internal processes involved.  This is related to the preposterous belief (and pseudo-assumption) that higher levels of conceptualization (aka abstraction) have no external proximate causes (referents) in the environment essential for their inception.  This preposterous, unempirical, and unjustified stance certainly has a long history in Western thought and mental philosophical cogitations, but should be seen by any empiricists as very likely a fiction; our outlook on the organism and its environment should SHOW our stance against such unjustified and empirically preposterous positions.  Until this is true, common ground, any real common ground for discussions will be lacking (it will be like the debate of those of 2 religious denominations !!)

If Western scientists continue to want to hold to certain basic assumptions (actually, basic beliefs, and not true assumptions), then they should at least have to PROVE THEM!  Without that the foundations of the fields of psychology are NOT even established; in a real sense, nothing good has yet even begun. 

Let me a remind you of ALTERNATIVE views and assumptions (contrary to those positions held today, but biologically and organismically more likely) -- and this is in addition to finding empirical referents for all significant behavior change AND HAVING A HISTORY OF TRACKING THOSE over ontogeny (a pattern of conceptualization supported by the ethological approach in "A Human Ethogram ...", using only, but all, the terms of classical ethology):

It can clearly be argued that all of the following are more in line with biology (organismic, if you like):

(1) one should develop a theory expressly consistent with biological principles (e.g. homeostasis) -- it should clearly and, in effect, constantly show in the theory;

(2) The most significant learnings and innate factors occur, in effect, completely simultaneously (and the innate factors at times may well be more important, regardless of the stage of development one is looking at);

(3) Major innate guidance emerges with each significant qualitative advance in conceptual abilities (last one around adolescence, at the earliest);

(4) The more "advanced" the organism, the more learning occurs, BUT ALSO the more [significant] innate guidance (factors) are involved;

(5) Inductive work should be emphasized and hypothetico-deductive systems should be formulated ONLY when you must (and then with no loss or bias of/in observation)

(6) Everything that develops, including our most prized abstract conceptual abilities, are very likely and potentially observable, concrete (in their inception) -- though these may often be seen "just as" perceptual (perceptual/attentional) SHIFTS and adaptive biases.  (This is an instance of the CORE empirical assumption and the way learnings/developments would happen with the organism adapting in its environment in any and every noteworthy way.  NO abstract conceptual abilities emerge from just internal processes -- from just "thinking" in the brain/mind.)  Never accept social-learning fictions as any plausible substitutes for individual advances -- especially when these really have just the same status as stories or myths

By the way:  None of the above indicates there is less learning (more if anything -- if one can really use their imagination here); but, also see:  there is no "pure" learning.

Establish these OR establish your "contraries", but DO ESTABLISH a foundation for the field.  If you lack the ability to establish your core beliefs and views (and "assumptions"), abandon them for views and assumptions that are quite possible (if not more likely) and which can be empirically shown -- or at least give it a try..

Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...

Dear Hadeel Mohammed Jawad,

your question is relevant to a discussion https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dont_developers_use_the_best_research_on_software_development .

>

Thus, I'd like to rezume the following: Researchers' community is in itself, Developers' community ( https://www.codeproject.com/ ) is in itself, and never these communities will not intersect. The vast majority of research is being done for the sake of research, while the vast majority of development is being done for real life.

Thank you Gennady . I think Research Gate environment is also missing some features that the developers' community website have. For example when someone answers in Stack Overflow, people can respond with something similar to like button in social media. This way increases people's interaction. The other defect in Research Gate is in the responsive design or the user interface for small screen. For example I am now writing this answer with my phone like many other people, the answer box was not designed for small screen. Also, the "edit" and "Delete" features are not working for the phone screen. In addition, they should consider hashtags if they don't have it. I think research Gate should add some features that increases people's interaction. Researchers are people at the end.

That's really an interesting question - I think it's because researchers and developers ask different kinds of questions - I assume developers' questions are more problem-oriented and technical, while sometimes researchers' questions are more open-ended and abstract. Furthermore, developers' typically create "communities of practices", which perhaps are more homogeneus in terms of knowledge that is generated within them, whereas researchers' communities, even within a same discipline or field, may tend to include more "unstructured" knowledge. Finally, I think developers are aware that helping each other is fundamental for solving issues - reciprocation is very important. If I help someone solving a problem, I may expect that tomorrow my problem will also be solved. My two cents...

Dear Andrea Gaggioli,

this is a brilliant answer. I completely agree with you.

Thank you Andrea for the great explanation. I would like to add, maybe and just maybe, the ego of a developer is less than the ego of a researcher. Researchers in their daily life deal with students where they can ignore their questions while developers deal with their colleagues and they usually not supposed to ignore their requests. Marx said "you are what you do". Researchers were programmed that they can ignore while developers were not. On the other cotext, Research Gate environment needs to develope more collaboration and should have more usability test to be more user friendly and more responsive. 

Dear Andrea Gaggioli 

I mainly agree with what you say.  But when you say "sometimes researchers' questions are more open-ended and abstract" [and] "may tend to include more 'unstructured' knowledge", this should NOT excuse not being able to find some common ground in addressing the particular questions.  There is no good excuse for lack of common ground. The reason lack of common ground exists is:  lack of direct empiricism (incl. observations and inter-rater reliabilities AND a clear history of such informing our understanding of the nature of internal representation via the various memory capacities).  One major type of thinking antithetical to good, empirical  science is the notion of embedded/embodied/enacted WITHOUT also significant "embedding" IN THE ENVIRONMENT (present) in EACH significant instance of learning (including that which occurs for major qualitative developments AND ALL SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS). 

It is beyond belief to me that a trend to theorize regarding embedded/embodied etc. is not accompanied by always MORE and MORE clear "embedding" with and in the environment -- this is simply a presumptuous break with empiricism (AND it's due to faulty, untested pseudo-assumptions) and is not in any way justified.  Until and unless the "embedded" theorists (researchers?) always show some corresponding increase in the embedded-ness of significant behaviors within the environment, all we have is a grand fiction of some important behavioral developments occurring ONLY IN/ JUST WITH the mind itself, i.e. ONLY internal processes involved.  This is related to the preposterous belief (and pseudo-assumption) that higher levels of conceptualization (aka abstraction) have no external proximate causes (referents) in the environment essential for their inception.  This preposterous, unempirical, and unjustified stance certainly has a long history in Western thought and mental philosophical cogitations, but should be seen by any empiricists as very likely a fiction; our outlook on the organism and its environment should SHOW our stance against such unjustified and empirically preposterous positions.  Until this is true, common ground, any real common ground for discussions will be lacking (it will be like the debate of those of 2 religious denominations !!)

If Western scientists continue to want to hold to certain basic assumptions (actually, basic beliefs, and not true assumptions), then they should at least have to PROVE THEM!  Without that the foundations of the fields of psychology are NOT even established; in a real sense, nothing good has yet even begun. 

Let me a remind you of ALTERNATIVE views and assumptions (contrary to those positions held today, but biologically and organismically more likely) -- and this is in addition to finding empirical referents for all significant behavior change AND HAVING A HISTORY OF TRACKING THOSE over ontogeny (a pattern of conceptualization supported by the ethological approach in "A Human Ethogram ...", using only, but all, the terms of classical ethology):

It can clearly be argued that all of the following are more in line with biology (organismic, if you like):

(1) one should develop a theory expressly consistent with biological principles (e.g. homeostasis) -- it should clearly and, in effect, constantly show in the theory;

(2) The most significant learnings and innate factors occur, in effect, completely simultaneously (and the innate factors at times may well be more important, regardless of the stage of development one is looking at);

(3) Major innate guidance emerges with each significant qualitative advance in conceptual abilities (last one around adolescence, at the earliest);

(4) The more "advanced" the organism, the more learning occurs, BUT ALSO the more [significant] innate guidance (factors) are involved;

(5) Inductive work should be emphasized and hypothetico-deductive systems should be formulated ONLY when you must (and then with no loss or bias of/in observation)

(6) Everything that develops, including our most prized abstract conceptual abilities, are very likely and potentially observable, concrete (in their inception) -- though these may often be seen "just as" perceptual (perceptual/attentional) SHIFTS and adaptive biases.  (This is an instance of the CORE empirical assumption and the way learnings/developments would happen with the organism adapting in its environment in any and every noteworthy way.  NO abstract conceptual abilities emerge from just internal processes -- from just "thinking" in the brain/mind.)  Never accept social-learning fictions as any plausible substitutes for individual advances -- especially when these really have just the same status as stories or myths

By the way:  None of the above indicates there is less learning (more if anything -- if one can really use their imagination here); but, also see:  there is no "pure" learning.

Establish these OR establish your "contraries", but DO ESTABLISH a foundation for the field.  If you lack the ability to establish your core beliefs and views (and "assumptions"), abandon them for views and assumptions that are quite possible (if not more likely) and which can be empirically shown -- or at least give it a try..

Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...