because they involve elements commonly thought to be scientific as well as
other elements of creativity and choice also involved in scientific work but
not commonly and explicitly elaborated,

They are not too well treated because existing treatments dwell on
scientific values, scientific methods of a recognized objective character and
include as exemplary controlled testing of hypotheses and the like. More
often than not, they bypass the nebulous and elusive matter of how guestions
and hypotheses are originated and how one gets from a zero point to a take-off
point. Not too much help is readily available because those who might be
helpful recognize that the necessary learning must take place through getting
involved in the gut experience. The important education involved is ulti-
mately independent self-education, not spoon feeding or solely following
someone else's direction in a compliant way.

Yet, there is no ready reference that tells just what the experience for
individuals will be, subjective as well as objective. Nor is it likely to
be clear beforehand what array of talents will be needed to move from ill-
structured wondering and sel£-igubte to well-structured problems and the
confidence to nail things down in researchable terms. Reference to works
already published may only compound any sense of inadeguacy for the less
initiated. The antiseptic residue that appears in published form freguently
omits anything informative about the subjective experience of the first stages.

The foregoing observations, let us concede, probably have more validity
in fields of inguiry where traditions of theory building and research design
and ways of socializing newcomers into these traditions are less well esta-
blished. 'Examples of this class might include a great array of interdisci-
plinary, incipient disciplinary, policy oriented, action oriented, professional,

guasi-professional, applied and ultimately utilitarian in contrast to basic

-4-