ABSTRACT
I believe a commitment to the identification of underlying systems runs through the work of Everett Hughes and his students. But the study of systems poses methodological issues which not only have not yet been satisfactorily dealt with but are only just beginning to be recognized. If our research aims were to be limited to the study of the relationship between two variables, then though we might encounter difficulties of operationalization or of experimental design which would demand for their solution a high level of intelligence and ingenuity, still we would know in general how to proceed. In contrast the attempt to identify systemic interrelations—to develop holistic assessment—is apt to pose more fundamental problems. We may find that although we are able to solve problems of data collection without undue difficulty, we are unable to decide how to proceed in a demonstration of the validity of our material; that we are not at all sure whether we can generalize our results beyond the instances we have studied; and that we even are uncertain regarding the legitimacy of the procedures by which we have moved from our data to our conclusions. One indication of this state of affairs is that holistic assessment 343may be described as art: sometimes appreciatively, but often not. Yet there is no question but that many of those investigators committed to holistic research believe that their contribution represents assertions about reality which are fully supported by evidence. 1
