Summarising briefly we could say:

In defining Question and Answer, we give in fact a description, not a solution of the problem.

In order to describe the solution, we must explain the step from Question to Answer. As we saw before, it is impossible to explain the step as a one-step process because this leads to irrelevancy. So the description of the solution has to be a multi step description in order to explain it. This is its logical, necessary implication. We have to assume a multi-step process! In order to prevent us from the same mistake as discussed in the second alternative, we have to add restrictions to these steps in relation to Question and Answer. Before describing these restrictions, first some notational conventions and an example of the simplest form of a multi-step process (MSP) are given fig. 6.

In defining Question and Answer, we give in fact a description, not a solution of the problem.

In order to describe the solution, we must explain the step from Question to Answer. As we saw before, it is impossible to explain the step as a one-step process because this leads to irrelevancy. So the description of the solution has to be a multi step description in order to explain it. This is its logical, necessary implication. We have to assume a multi-step process! In order to prevent us from the same mistake as discussed in the second alternative, we have to add restrictions to these steps in relation to Question and Answer. Before describing these restrictions, first some notational conventions and an example of the simplest form of a multi-step process (MSP) are given fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Notational conventions and an example of a 2-step process, process-open condition.

So we can say that the steps between Question and Answer are related to Q and A but not directly related! There has to be something different from Q and A in-between.

In comparing the steps to each other, we can say they cannot be unrelated, because if so, we shift the problem to the last step and so we end up describing a one-step process! The notational consequence for this last statement is:

Delta i,j i=1,N-1; j=1,N; N>=2

By introducing the observer's question: what is it? We return to the old issue. So after a while the perceiver gives an answer. She/he has completed the task. How it was done we do not know yet, but we have given a short description of the problem. However, before discussing the solution, we must add another element. We can ask the following Question: what will happen if the answer of the perceiver and the observer are not in correspondence with each other?

Here we meet the problem of inter-subjectivity or, put in other words, the problem of context or task interpretation. In the next part we will discuss this problem within the research-context.

In comparing the steps to each other, we can say they cannot be unrelated, because if so, we shift the problem to the last step and so we end up describing a one-step process! The notational consequence for this last statement is:

Delta i,j i=1,N-1; j=1,N; N>=2

By introducing the observer's question: what is it? We return to the old issue. So after a while the perceiver gives an answer. She/he has completed the task. How it was done we do not know yet, but we have given a short description of the problem. However, before discussing the solution, we must add another element. We can ask the following Question: what will happen if the answer of the perceiver and the observer are not in correspondence with each other?

Here we meet the problem of inter-subjectivity or, put in other words, the problem of context or task interpretation. In the next part we will discuss this problem within the research-context.

Theoretical Implications

From now on, in order to keep in line with traditional conventions. Our observer will be called Researcher (R) and our Perceiver(P+B) will be called Subject (S).

It has become clear that a certain event can have different meanings according to the Researcher's or Subject's point of view. To form an impression of the possible viewpoints of the Researcher let us follow her/him for a while.

The "real" Researcher is by nature confronted with dozens of questions and the aim is to ensure that they are answered.

To avoid undue complexity, only one Subject is enlisted, in the hope that she/he can provide answers to the questions.

From now on, in order to keep in line with traditional conventions. Our observer will be called Researcher (R) and our Perceiver(P+B) will be called Subject (S).

It has become clear that a certain event can have different meanings according to the Researcher's or Subject's point of view. To form an impression of the possible viewpoints of the Researcher let us follow her/him for a while.

The "real" Researcher is by nature confronted with dozens of questions and the aim is to ensure that they are answered.

To avoid undue complexity, only one Subject is enlisted, in the hope that she/he can provide answers to the questions.

R

**.**

.

S

.

S

So we see here one Researcher with many Questions to be answered by means of the Subject.

Question-side Researcher Answer-side

??????**.**

**.** !!!!!!

Question-side Subject Answer-side

Question-side Researcher Answer-side

??????

Question-side Subject Answer-side

The Researcher wants to influence the Subject as little as possible so a context (related to the relevant Questions) is chosen.

The crucial danger here lies in the fact that the Researcher's context is not necessarily in correspondence with the Subject's context. If we increase the number of Subjects, situations are bound to occur where Subject defined contexts do not correspond to the contexts of the Researcher. In repeating this situation there can be shifts on two sides: the Researcher's Questions can change and/or the Subject's Questions can change, with the consequent change in Answers.

Having reached this situation, our Researcher thinks: at least we have to work within the same context, so the Ouestion-side is consequently reduced into a single task which the Subject is asked to perform. (In the performing of the task by the Subject the Researcher concludes: same task interpretation).

Question-side Researcher Answer-side

?**.**

?**.** !!!!!!

Question-side Subject Answer-side

The crucial danger here lies in the fact that the Researcher's context is not necessarily in correspondence with the Subject's context. If we increase the number of Subjects, situations are bound to occur where Subject defined contexts do not correspond to the contexts of the Researcher. In repeating this situation there can be shifts on two sides: the Researcher's Questions can change and/or the Subject's Questions can change, with the consequent change in Answers.

Having reached this situation, our Researcher thinks: at least we have to work within the same context, so the Ouestion-side is consequently reduced into a single task which the Subject is asked to perform. (In the performing of the task by the Subject the Researcher concludes: same task interpretation).

Question-side Researcher Answer-side

?

?

Question-side Subject Answer-side

Our Researcher is intent on doing relevant research. So the Subject is given as much liberty as possible. The Subject has to perform the task: how the task is done the Researcher will decide afterwards, having analysed the data and having compared these results with explicit idea's formulated before. This situation seems fair enough. But still, if we compare different Subjects, some of them will act on the basis different task-completion criteria. The subject's will have different notions of the Researcher's expectations, which will be subjectively formulated, in order to arrive at a successful (in their own eyes) completion of the task (despite time-limitations or limitations of the set of response alternatives).

By repeating this situation, the possible shifts have decreased by one: if the Researcher asks the same Question, the Subjects can still act on the basis of totally different task-completion criteria, so the Question side is now closed but the Answer-side is still open. We can summarise both approaches as QA-open approaches.

Having noticed this problem, our Researcher concludes: in order to have complete task-interpretation on both sides (Researcher and Subject Side. The Question-side and the Answer-side must be identical between Subject and Researcher. And it must remain this way, even if the situation is repeated!

Question-side Researcher Answer-side

?**. **!** **

?**.** !

Question-side Subject Answer-side

By repeating this situation, the possible shifts have decreased by one: if the Researcher asks the same Question, the Subjects can still act on the basis of totally different task-completion criteria, so the Question side is now closed but the Answer-side is still open. We can summarise both approaches as QA-open approaches.

Having noticed this problem, our Researcher concludes: in order to have complete task-interpretation on both sides (Researcher and Subject Side. The Question-side and the Answer-side must be identical between Subject and Researcher. And it must remain this way, even if the situation is repeated!

Question-side Researcher Answer-side

?

?

Question-side Subject Answer-side

So if the Researcher and the Subject ask themselves the same Question and give the same Answer, over and over again, the conclusion is reached: the situation is totally predictable.

The question which must now be asked is: What is there still to be known, if both sides (The Question and Answer side) are already known?

If both sides are known, I want to know how it is possible to get from one side to the other: How does it work?

The question which must now be asked is: What is there still to be known, if both sides (The Question and Answer side) are already known?

If both sides are known, I want to know how it is possible to get from one side to the other: How does it work?

In fact, our Researcher assumes there is a process at work, and the job is now to explain that process, so explicit statements are formulated.

Now the Researcher formulates a suitable Question and Answer related to a certain Event {E0) and considers this as the operationalisation of the task the Subject has to perform.

The Answer of the Researcher is the expected or predicted Answer of the Subject. Further, the Researcher asks the Subject to perform the task and checks whether the expected Answer is in correspondence with the Answer of the Subject.

We can describe this situation as the Process-closed QA-open condition.

This situation is still irrelevant, but nonetheless special. As explained before and noticed by our Researcher, we have to explain the step the Subject is making from Q to A, in order to describe the process. To do so, the Researcher has to break down the step into more steps, each step different but related to the other steps. The simplest case is 2 steps related to each other. In other words: the Subject, starting with question Q, is confronted with some event EO which will first activate step1 (in interaction with E1,1) and in relation to step1, activate step2(in interaction with E1,2), and give the answer A.

The next problem the Researcher has to solve is to compose an Event in Such a way that a differential A can be given.

The only way to get a predictable differential A is to decompose the Event in such a critical way that the change {born out of the decomposition of the Event), has a differential effect on the process in (inter)action on the Subject-side.

This situation is still irrelevant, but nonetheless special. As explained before and noticed by our Researcher, we have to explain the step the Subject is making from Q to A, in order to describe the process. To do so, the Researcher has to break down the step into more steps, each step different but related to the other steps. The simplest case is 2 steps related to each other. In other words: the Subject, starting with question Q, is confronted with some event EO which will first activate step1 (in interaction with E1,1) and in relation to step1, activate step2(in interaction with E1,2), and give the answer A.

The next problem the Researcher has to solve is to compose an Event in Such a way that a differential A can be given.

The only way to get a predictable differential A is to decompose the Event in such a critical way that the change {born out of the decomposition of the Event), has a differential effect on the process in (inter)action on the Subject-side.

We can describe this situation as the Process-open QA-closed condition.

It goes without saying that El,1 and El,2 have to be similar with regard to step1, but they have to be dissimilar with regard to step2 in one case and have to be similar with regard to step1 and similar with regard to step2 in another case.

From the Subject's side we can describe the situation as follows: starting from question Q and confronted with E1,1 the Subject concludes something and thus has gained knowledge. She/he tries to find further knowledge, because this situation is still too inconclusive for the answer to be given. An attempt is made, therefore, to obtain fresh knowledge which will lead to the correct answer.

Now confronted with E1,2 which was similar to E1,1 with respect to step1, our Subject can maintain this knowledge and reach in interaction with E1,2, a second conclusion. This conclusion enables the Answer A to be given.

Confronted with E1,2 which is dissimilar with respect to step1 the gained knowledge cannot be maintained and the process has to start all over again. The probability of giving the right answer diminishes in this situation because there is too little time left.

In the first situation there was a possibility to build upon already established knowledge, so the probability of a right answer will rise. And so we see a differentiation between the two conditions when the predicted knowledge was in fact applied. When this knowledge is not applied we expect no differentiation.

Time-differences between Subjects, with respect to their Answer, are of no explanatory value. It is the quality of the Answer we are concerned with. This quality tells us whether we have made the right or wrong explicit statements regarding the process and the assumed knowledge within the Subject.

It goes without saying that El,1 and El,2 have to be similar with regard to step1, but they have to be dissimilar with regard to step2 in one case and have to be similar with regard to step1 and similar with regard to step2 in another case.

From the Subject's side we can describe the situation as follows: starting from question Q and confronted with E1,1 the Subject concludes something and thus has gained knowledge. She/he tries to find further knowledge, because this situation is still too inconclusive for the answer to be given. An attempt is made, therefore, to obtain fresh knowledge which will lead to the correct answer.

Now confronted with E1,2 which was similar to E1,1 with respect to step1, our Subject can maintain this knowledge and reach in interaction with E1,2, a second conclusion. This conclusion enables the Answer A to be given.

Confronted with E1,2 which is dissimilar with respect to step1 the gained knowledge cannot be maintained and the process has to start all over again. The probability of giving the right answer diminishes in this situation because there is too little time left.

In the first situation there was a possibility to build upon already established knowledge, so the probability of a right answer will rise. And so we see a differentiation between the two conditions when the predicted knowledge was in fact applied. When this knowledge is not applied we expect no differentiation.

Time-differences between Subjects, with respect to their Answer, are of no explanatory value. It is the quality of the Answer we are concerned with. This quality tells us whether we have made the right or wrong explicit statements regarding the process and the assumed knowledge within the Subject.