So, what's new?

One of the challenging questions posed to me as a Research Leader at IWMI was, ’What’s new’? 

This line of query did not mean that everything that was researched was some or other new – we continued research in topics like rainwater harvesting, organic manuring, and development of business plans.  I have studied them and developed business plans for my BS degree in Agriculture, some 40 years ago. 

Being privileged to work in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, soon I learnt that everything is new for sub Saharan Africa, and the donors were happy to put money in, as long as there’s an element of capacity building and women empowerment.  Donors are/were not interested in research, but on development of human capital through which socio-economic development may occur.  I do not have anything against this, it is the right thing to do, and I welcome this.  Asian countries on the other hand have well developed human capital; China, India and South East of Asia do not need external help.  As a matter of fact, they do not even need money for research these days.  So, donors keep away, or being asked to keep away.

The above does not answer the question, ’What’s new?’, and the answer lies in text books for ‘Philosophy of Science’.  In most cases, and most researchers, we do induction/deduction research.  The probabilistic definition of inductive research goes as,’ If a large number of As have been observed under a wide variety of conditions, and if all these observed As without an exception possessed property B, then all As probably possess the property B.  \Greater the number of observations, then greater the probability that resulting generalizations are true. 

So, scientific knowledge arrived through induction and deduction is not true, but probably true.

As inductivists, we repeat what we already know, fine tune them by applying a new methodology or a tool or pose the question differently, and when we have to publish, we often bring supporting testaments from researchers who had reported similar findings.  Through this type of research, we improve pretty much what we know. 

This is a good thing, and why should not we do such things?

A recent example could be smart-mobile phones.  Mobile phone was invented in 1971, the battery weighed 2 kgs and lasted 10 minutes of conversation!  Now mobile phones are smarter and snugly fits in our pockets, battery last for 48 hours, they have a camera, radio, and voice recorder and the works, which all existed before mobile phone was invented.  Can anyone say, that research in mobile phones should stop because there can’t be anything new?

In early days of IIMI, we showed through inductive research, and by gathering large body of data, that there’s inequity in water distribution in canal commands, which influenced many irrigation infrastructure modernization programs.

This does not mean that we should not search for something new.  There was Martin Cooper at Motorola who wanted mobile phones instead of land lines, so, when the phone rang, we did not have to ‘run’ to the phone tethered to a wall.  It is already with us.  This was a ‘paradigm shift’, a phrase loosely used by many of us.  We need such paradigm shifts to make quantum leaps in the way we live.

When I look back, this took place when IWMI, amongst others wanted to manage water as a basin resource.  Yes, we knew the hydrologic cycle, we knew water is recycled again and again, but within the context of water for agriculture, and perceived efficiencies in irrigation applications, there was a paradigm shift.  Investors in irrigation infrastructure maintenance were guided by this new paradigm.  Lining of canals in fresh groundwater areas were discouraged.

I argue, we need these paradigm shifts, and I argue,that we keep encouraging  inductivism as well.