The cultural demand for predictability engulfed me, just as it does students: Where is the carefully formulated topic and the detailed plan for developing it? Resisting this demand, I tell students in my research methodology courses that it is possible to proceed without topic or method being explicitly formulated. I tell them that when they allow themselves to inquire into something that interests them deeply, they are already researching,* and that as they undertake to articulate precisely the topic of their already ongoing research, the research process is continuing to unfold. I tell them that contained in this unfolding is a rudimentary method, which, like the topic, comes into being as it is articulated (Oberg 2004:^ref 239-240).

*The truth of this observation can be seen in the morphology of the word research. To research is to search again, and again and again

This way of proceeding feels risky. Setting out, there is always the risk that nothing will happen. When something does happen, there is the risk that the result will not be viewed as credible: proceeding without method is suspect in an academic environment where adherence to method is the only legitimate source of legitimacy. And yet I feel compelled to proceed in this way, not only in teaching, researching, and writing, but also in relating with colleagues, acquaintances, friends, and family members. Being open, paying attention, and not knowing, that is, presuming as little as possible about others, is a deeply respectful way of relating (Oberg 2004: 242).

reminds me of comments/discussion on cbc program last sunday (07.03.04) where the person being interviewed (of some religious persuasion) spoke of humans as being 'deep' and spoke of open interation with people as fundamental

...

...

...

...