ABSTRACT
Even if you view it in the most priggish way there can be no doubt that the art of finding good problems is much more difficult than the art of finding good solutions. But if you cast a glance at the vast literature on methodology, you will come to the opposite conclusion. The word ‘art’ may shock you, as it sounds so alien to the word ‘science’, but I have no hand in it, since practically they are necessary to each other. Rather than expatiating at length to try to convince you, I will illustrate this point with an example. Looking back to the emergence of social psychology, Festinger wrote about Lewin as follows: ‘In part the originality of Lewin’s early contributions to social psychology lay in the choice of problems to investigate – in the judgement of what was, or was not, an interesting or important problem’ (1981: 238). After uttering this, however, he met with the major difficulty:
I would like [he admitted] to be able to explain how such judgements are and why some persons do it so well. Unfortunately, the way in which one makes a priori judgements about ‘interesting’ and ‘important’ are to me still in the realm of unreliable art. But Kurt Lewin had a fine talent for it, and somehow that talent rubbed off a little on those around him.
(Festinger 1981: 238)