Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This article outlines an attempt to develop a method of inquiry, which takes a frank look at the untidy realities of research.During his practitioner-based PhD the author was mainly 'working without rules' (Appignanesi & Garrett, 1995, p. 50).New understandings of concepts such as analysis, data, theory and writing began to evolve as he gradually embraced a positive view of 'mess'.1Over the 6 years of the study, the author made many 'errors', but wanted to be honest about these.He eventually began to see an 'honesty trail', together with clear communication (the material should be very readable and subject to feedback) as essential parts of the project's 'strength' (a term offered in place of validity):
Nigel Mellor (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: