Learning and Mislearning 87information and exclude the unexpected. When method is the master, gaps, link-
ages and serendipity stay in the dark. Standard multidisciplinary research can gen-
erate islands of information between which bridges cannot be built.
On the other hand, inquisitiveness, observation, and an eagerness to learn
from farmers and others can open up unsuspected topics. For example, the WMSP
finding on Mahi-Kadana that farmers were prepared to pay seven to nine times as
much for lift irrigation water as the official water rate for canal water might have
suggested a new research agenda with new policy implications.
There is no one recipe for an open learning process, and more depends on
attitudes than on planning. But one measure can be recommended: not commit-
ting all research resources at the start of an investigation. If spare capacity is held
in reserve, new questions can be followed up as and when they are identified. This
is not to argue against careful measurements sustained over time. It is to argue that
they are unlikely to be enough in themselves, and that qualitative investigations,
often with improvised methods, have much to contribute if gaps, linkages and
serendipity are to be explored as they need to be.
It seems obvious that concern for understanding and truth should drive every
researcher. Yet routine performance of a method and a stereotyped report often
seem to reflect concern more for proper observance of ritual than for new knowl-
edge. One omission in most, perhaps all, disciplines is self-critical publication by
researchers of defects in their methods. When researchers honestly present the
errors and limitations of their research, it gains in credibility, and the confessions
contribute to future methodology. Research is not a ritual, still less an exercise in
producing a predetermined right answer. It is, or should be, an exploration of
unknown terrain where one does not know what will be found. Canal irrigation is
so shrouded in mists of misinformation that it needs many more who keep their
eyes open and report what they see. Action research is thick with traps (Chambers
and Lenton, 1981), and temptations to make pilot projects islands of salvation are
hard to resist. The best service is done by those who strive not for correct appear-
ances but for true insight.
Finally, observers do not often observe themselves, or assess the limits of their
vision. Little research is conducted on research. Yet so often researchers see what
they are trained to see, ask what they are trained to ask, measure what they are
trained to measure, and conclude what they are trained to conclude. This has its
value, within limits. But many of the more important aspects of canal irrigation
are simply not covered in textbooks or training. Though knowledgeable and com-
petent in their subjects, well-trained professionals miss much that matters. Normal
professionalism is not enough. Few would perhaps disagree. But to extend normal
professionalism to cover gaps and linkages is hard. A first step is awareness of one’s
conditioning and biases. It is easy to be deterred from exploring new domains,
hidden linkages, and gap subjects, not just by inconvenience or risk, but also
because vision is confined and directed by the ruts and reflexes of disciplines.
Introspection is one way of removing such professional blinkers, gaining a wider
view and offsetting biases.