New Mandala

19 responses so far ↓

• 1 hpboothe // Feb 5, 2007 at 6:52 pm

  Oh, Mr Walker, is the level of your analytic thought? Do you confuse bewilderment that a so-called “academic” doesn’t understand how a selective smattering of various comments serves little useful function in a policy debate with alarm that “rural people in Thailand actually have opinions”? A laundry list of various comments that agree with your political viewpoint is your response to a methodological dispute? Hang on a second, let me chat with a few friends…OK, here are some more “important opinions” for you:

  1. Apocalypto was a pretty violent film
  2. Something smells like its burning in the kitchen
  3. It’s really annoying when taxi drivers don’t know directions

  There, some erudite “sociologically important” opinions to add to your list – with the same amount of rigor you put in to understanding how those opinions relate to the population you’re reporting on.

• 2 nganadeeleg // Feb 5, 2007 at 8:26 pm

  To hpboothe:
  Maybe it’s time you did some research yourself.
  I suggest that you start with: What’s the difference between a blog and a research paper?

• 3 David Mc // Feb 5, 2007 at 11:50 pm

  To be honest, I think this sufficiency economy idea is starting to sound just like a way of weaning people off the way Thailand subsidized them aka bought their vote. My initial reaction is to say that’s a good thing, so in this sense I think the sufficiency economy idea might have a bit of merit.

  It sounds like this would increase the farmer’s self-sufficiency and work ethic, which seem like two areas where these farmers can use some improvement.

  It seems like many people are still living in a feudal agricultural system where they have no attachment to the idea that the harder they work, the more money they’ll earn.

  Where does the Sufficiency Economy fit into all this? help or hurt? opinions anyone?

• 4 hpboothe // Feb 7, 2007 at 7:07 pm

  nganadeeleg asks, ” What’s the difference between a blog and a research paper?”

  That’s an excellent question. Mr. Walker’s “Lessons from the Thaksin era” presentation given at a supposedly academic conference, sounds very much like a blog post – a stream of highly contestable opinions with no backup (except of course the one citation of himself!). On the other hand, Mr Walker’s claims his blog post “The poor stay poor and the rich stay rich” is “an interesting contribution to the sufficency economy debate,” adopting the pretense of research.

  I have seen blog posts that are meticulously researched and documented, and I have seen “research” papers with shoddy methodology and illogical conclusions. The issue is not whether comments are posted on blogs or appear in peer-reviewed journals, the issue is whether the content of the comments have merit. Mistaking form and content is the same error as blind belief in authority or “alarm that rural people in Thailand actually have opinions.”

  Mr. Walker presents a series of statements with no attribution, no context (e.g. what question was asked to elicit the comment?), no indication of how representative the comments are of what population, and absolutely no reference to the factual validity of any of these statements. We can reasonably assume that these are not the totality of statements heard by Mr. Walker in his travels, therefore he must be making some selection of what statements to report and what not. How is this selection made? What are the filtering criteria? Alas, there is no mention of any of this.

  Yet each statement carries with it a clear ideological viewpoint, by which we can conclude that the filtration used by Mr. Walker is exactly that – his personal ideological viewpoint, as presented in both blog entries and “academic” presentations.

  Regardless of form, blog or research, content filtered on the basis of ideological viewpoint rather than factual validity or population representation can only be called one thing: propaganda. Sadly, whether from the Nation or Mr. Walker, that’s about all we get in the political discourse in Thailand.

  Best regards,

  HP Boothe

• 5 Srithanonchai // Feb 7, 2007 at 7:23 pm

  In fact, he has two references to himself. To do him justice, he has promised (perhaps too strong a word) to come up with a scholarly version of his presentation notes, supposedly including full substantiation of all his empirical statements as well as a full engagement with the relevant literature. So, just wait for a few more weeks, and we will have what we are looking forward to!

• 6 Andrew Walker // Feb 7, 2007 at 8:01 pm

  Oh dear Mr Boothe (or, if I may, HP), you really are getting up a head of steam about my academic standards. I do appreciate the interest. If you are interested in reading some of my fuller published papers (on which the conference presentation builds) there are links to them on the “NM Bloggers” page (see the link at the top of the page). For what it is worth -those at the conference (perhaps a rather dim mob by your standards) did seem to appreciate the presentation. One colleague told me that he couldn’t even get in the door. Perhaps it was jammed.

  Later this month I will post a draft of a paper I am currently writing on “local political culture”. This explores, from an ethnographic perspective, some of the issues I discuss in the conference presentation. When the time comes, your comments will be very welcome.

  On the issue of selectivity. Of course, the way we present and package our research is selective. Readers can make their own judgement (and this blog welcomes all judgements) about how appropriate the selection is. But I am confident that the quotes I have provided about “sufficiency economy” do reflect commonly held perspectives in the part of Thailand where I work. I would love to hear other local perspectives and would be more than happy to feature them on New Mandala.

  And, of course, I would love to read some of your own work!

• 7 Andrew Walker // Feb 7, 2007 at 8:04 pm

  And let me make just one other quick comment. Perhaps you HP (and others) would be interested in engaging with the substance of the argument that I put in the conference paper. That is, that the campaign for rural empowerment waged by NGOs and activist academics has contributed some ideological legitimacy to Thailand’s coup. I think this is a topic worthy of debate.

• 8 Srithanonchai // Feb 7, 2007 at 8:42 pm

  I saw that thesis, and I thought it is interesting. One of the reasons I look forward to the fuller version is because I think that you will try to substantiate this link. Turning a weak statement such as “contributed some ideological legitimacy” (or “some of the ideological groundwork for the coup”, for that matter, which does not necessarily carry the same meaning as the previous quote) into something strong won’t seem to be easy to me (”some” > 2%, 15%, 55%, i.e. how significant is “some”, not the least in relation to all the other factors, and whose sense of legitimacy is it that you refer to?). When it has been achieved, though, the debate can start.

• 9 Pig Latin // Feb 7, 2007 at 11:21 pm

  Just noticed your opinion in the economist from April 20th 06 Dr Boothe.

  http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6823548

  If you don’t remember:

  SIR – Your leader on Thaksin Shinawatra’s resignation as prime minister of Thailand made some good points, but it is wrong to think that he has “genuinely helped” the rural poor (“A blow to Thai democracy”, April 8th). This is a premature judgment. His rural-development policies may appear attractive on the surface, but dig deeper and you find a health-care system close to bankruptcy and a raft of government-backed loans that ignore the essential lessons of microlending. While buying motorcycles and mobile phones shored up his political base, and certainly helped “pump up domestic demand”, it did nothing to tackle the rising debt in the countryside.

  With interest rates rising and the economy slowing, debt will now become a major problem. It would have been better for Thailand if Mr Thaksin’s ill-advised and self-serving grassroots policies played themselves out, which would have eventually turned his supporters away from him. The worry is that his resignation will spur the countryside to blame his successor when the inevitable destruction comes to pass, allowing him to return again in his ersatz role as “saviour”.

  H.P. Boothe
  Taling Chan, Thailand

  Having read this, I would propose that the nature of your attack on the presentation of opinions made on the New Mandala blog is simply a case of your own glorious opinion being skewed by potential rational, undiluted dialog where you are not the god. If this is not so, why have you not provided more of what you claim to be missing, thereby educating us peon masses properly?

  I think of this blog as a tutorial. How do you start a tutorial? With banal cerebrating that drives interest away? Or do you make it seem real, so much so that undergraduate could grab it with their bare hands and say “Yes! Finally a topic that breathes!?” Sadly there is no blog/quasi tutorial that I am aware you are leading and so I could only form an unreferenced opinion on what it would be like.

  Enough of my rebuttal of your attacks Boothey, I’ll provide my limited opinion on the legitimization of NGO causes. Please savage me nicely.

  From my experience in Nepal with the King in total control, enabled the rhetoric of NGO’s to be much more powerful. Especially in regards to welfare. Now that Gyanendra has submitted some of his power, these calls for welfare specifically from NGO’s in rural areas has most certainly become less cared for.

  In attempting a parallel between the two situations, my totally unsubstantiated claim from speaking to various Nepali people is that rural empowerment by the “Maoist” alliance was always geared towards ‘the people’ being in a legitimate government. NGO’s largely would not support the 70% of the population who supported the Maoists, yet would support the King who emphasised the need for more obsequious NGO’s and tried to exploit his nations plight crudely to neo-liberal ‘activist’ academics not in favour of a political organisation bearing the ideology of Mao. Fittingly the majority of NGO’s I came in contact with in Nepal on various visits, were just as corrupt as him.

  The questions that I am cerebrating are a) the legitimisation of activist causes in general being used from the position of the victim, thereby being sociologically unhealthy unto itself? and b)
  can sufficiency theory really to be a positive push towards lifestyle change when the motivation for its implementation is clearly a patch for political upheaval?

• 10 hpboothe // Feb 8, 2007 at 3:46 pm

  Mr Walker: You may call me whatever you wish, and let me assure you that my head of steam is present regardless of your particular academic standards. Not having been to the conference, I certainly cannot assess the dimness of the mob present, but I’m sure it’s gratifying to you to find an appreciative audience, just as Paris Hilton must be happy to have fans, dim or otherwise. But none of that addresses the issues that I am raising, which is why the dialogue concerning rural and political development in Thailand seems entirely populated by ideological diatribe rather than rigorous analysis.

  I certainly do NOT want to comment on “local political culture” as I’ve not done any objective research into the issue and so therefore anything I have to say would inevitably be colored by personal experience. The inability to identify and account for observer bias is a major part of why so much of social science is scoffed at by analytical afficionados like myself. How is individual or even mass opinion on practical policy issues useful in isolation from what relation those opinions have on measurable reality? Consider that in 2002 a good proportion of the US believed that Saddam Hussein was associated with the 9/11 attacks to see just where ill-informed public opinon can lead.

  If you are “selecting” your dataset, you are not conducting “research”. Research begins with a hypothesis and a sound methodology to test that hypothesis, and then proceeeds with data gathering . One does not “select” or “package” data to suit ones pre-determined outcome. That is propaganda, and please excuse me if your “confidence” that your quotes are “commonly held perspectives” is unconvincing. Whence does your confidence arise? What questions are you asking? How do you control for your being a foreigner asking these questions? What you have given is a laundry list of various comments that espouse a certain political viewpoint, and I don’t see how responding with another laundry list of opposing comments serves any purpose other than to show that there are differing opinions out there – of which I doubt there is a question.

  I am certainly NOT interested in engaging with the argument that that the campaign for rural empowerment waged by NGOs and activist academics has contributed some ideological legitimacy to Thailand’s coup, because, as I mentioned before, I know nothing about it and anything I have to say would be as useless as the opinions you’ve posted. I do NOT think this is a topic worthy of debate – rather I think it is a topic worthy of research. Setting up social science research methodology is NOT easy, as Srithanonchai mentions, but that is not an excuse for dispensing with analysis completely and replacing it with a shouting match. Good social science research is few and far between, mostly because so many people think it’s nothing more than random interviews and pontificating, which is easy to do. Just note the number of comments on topics with no factual basis vs. the number of responses to the BMJ article about the 30-B health plan. The minute you start looking at facts, that’s the end of the conversation – to the detriment of actual development of any sort in Thailand.

  Best regards,

  HP Boothe

• 11 hpboothe // Feb 8, 2007 at 3:59 pm

  Mr Pig Latin: Thank you for your insightful analysis of my motivations, you’ve saved me countless hours on the psychiatrists couch. You will notice, however, that my note to the Economist was exactly along the lines of my critiques of Mr. Walker – that sweeping pronouncements made on the basis of faulty analysis or without a shred of evidence whatsoever are of marginal utility apart from making noise.

  The financial problems in the 30-B health care plan, the structural problems in the rural development schemes, the rising consumption & debt in the countryside; none of these are opinions – all can be demonstrated conclusively. My prediction of a future debt crisis and of Thaksin coming back to “save” the country from problems he initiated are speculative of course – but I am unaware of how to research the future.

  The reason I have “not provided more of what you claim to be missing” is because I am also unaware of how to provide what I am missing.

  “How do you start a tutorial?” you ask. I would hope a tutorial would begin with a fact base. If I had such a fact base (e.g. statistics on village lending NPLs), I would certainly post them somewhere. However, I am not contending that these programs are or are not successful; I am contending that those who do should back up their claims with credible data, but apparently that’s asking for too much.

  Again, I refer you to Mr. Walker’s post regarding the BMJ article that did analyze the 30-B health care scheme. It has to date generated one comment, a thanks for the post. No discussion, no conversation. I find it sad that actual research gets such a reception while so much attention goes to unsubstantiated, unverifiable speculation.

  Best regards,

  HP Boothe

• 12 nganadeeleg // Feb 8, 2007 at 4:44 pm

  Whilst I don’t want to buy into a debate about academic/social research, I am interested in the following statement by hpboothe:

  “How is individual or even mass opinion on practical policy issues useful in isolation from what relation those opinions have on measurable reality? Consider that in 2002 a good proportion of the US believed that Saddam Hussein was associated with the 9/11 attacks to see just where ill-informed public opinon can lead.”

  Because of the ‘one man, one vote’ system, I think it is important to know what peoples opinions are (especially mass opinion), irrespective of whether those opinions bear any relationship to measurable reality.

  Political parties that can read (or manipulate) mass opinion are likely to be be more successful than those that cannot.

• 13 Srithanonchai // Feb 8, 2007 at 7:02 pm

  In the context of this discussion on mass opinion, the following article might be interesting. Ilya Somin. 2004. “When Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatenss Democracy.” Policy Analysis No. 525, September 22, 2004. This text should be downloadable from the web site of the Cato Institute.

  As an aside, to an epistemological constructivist, the idea of the existence of “measurable reality” is bizarrely unrealistic. There is nothing but constructions of reality (whether achieved deductively/analytically or inductively/qualitatively). And it is only these constructions that compete with each other. Scholarly constructions are only insofar different from other sorts of constructions as they are produced by controlled procedures.

• 14 hpboothe // Feb 9, 2007 at 2:15 pm

  nganadeeleg states that “Political parties that can read (or manipulate) mass opinion are likely to be be more successful than those that cannot.”

  I propose that since that is the case, the importance of that opinion vs. fact is even MORE critical, as a divergence between the two has serious consequences, like war. The way the American public was duped (with their own collusion, to be sure) into the current disaster, or the way the Thai public is duped points to MORE work relating opinion to fact, not less.

  As for Srithanonchai’s concern that “measureable reality” is “bizarrely unrealistic”, would he “construct a reality” where he is confident in stepping in front a a speeding train?

  “Measureable reality” is based on constructing theory that maximizes explanatory power while minimizing axiomatic inputs. It is not a philosophical debate, it is scientific method. If you don’t accept that, then we end up arguing spiritual truth and that FAR more difficult than any science.

  Best regards,

  HP Boothe

• 15 Srithanonchai // Feb 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm

  I deliberately put in “epistemological” in my statement re “measurable reality” in order to indicate a difference between common sense practical naivity, which might serve everyday research activities well, and more fundamental questions on the possibility of human knowledge, which would lead us to a somewhat more cautious and skeptical view on things. I thought your version of quasi-religious or “spiritual” belief in “science” in social investigation was laid to rest some time ago.

• 16 hpboothe // Feb 14, 2007 at 4:01 pm

  Srithanonchai – from what I see passing for “social investigation”, i think you’re correct that actual science has left the field, at least as Thai studies is concerned. Science makes no pretense at “fundamental questions on the possibility of human knowledge”, it is a simple method for understanding observable phenomena that leads to useful results, like being able to build bridges and tell if it’s likely to rain. Strictly speaking, all science develops “theories” on reality – a term which is also misunderstood. The test of a theory is not whether it is “real” (the epistomological and frankly boring argument you put forth), but whether it is “useful” – that is, predictive.

  Scientific methodology consists of developing hypotheses, formulating experiments to validate or refute those hypotheses, and analyzing the results of the experiment to draw a conclusion about the original hypothesis. You have a better method for understanding the world and coming to useful conclusions? Perhaps you feel it’s more useful to use our own memories and experiences and argue with others who have different memories and experiences? Because that’s exactly what I see in Thai “social investigation”.

  HP Boothe

• 17 Srithanonchai // Feb 14, 2007 at 4:48 pm

  Generally speaking, science has been quite successful in providing us with knowledge about the physical world. However, it has hardly contributed anything so far to our understanding of how society works. This so far has remained a promise that has been left unfullfilled in the fields of sociology, political science, or anthropology. And that’s the reason why this approach has not managed to leave its position at the margins of our quest for knowledge on the social.

  Similarly, science has not left the field of Thai studies. Rather, it has never entered it (or has it?).

  As for myself, I am rather pragmatic in my approach, that is, I don’t like works of social science that do not fulfill its professional standards. But I also don’t like “scientific” work that merely manages to produce some research artifacts and present them as the scientific truth.

  In this context, I would be interested in knowing what “scientific” works on Thailand you think have contributed to the field of Thai studies. Ten titles would satisfy my curiosity.

  I am also eagerly awaiting your “scientific”, hypotheses- and experiment-based work on the Sonthi/PAD protests, the coup, and the current constitution drafting. But I won’t hold my breath.

• 18 hpboothe // Feb 17, 2007 at 8:53 pm

  Mr Srithanonchai – are we in violent agreement here? We both agree that science has had little impact on social understanding – though I contend that’s because hardly anyone uses it.

  Your comment about presenting “research artifacts … as the scientific truth” is illuminating. Research should be aimed at validating or disproving a hypothesis, therefore, no “artifact” can ever legitimately be called a “scientific result” – if there is an unforeseen result, it must then be input into a new hypothesis and experiment before being called scientific anything (and “truth” is not a very popular word in science).

  Ten good Thai studies works? That’s a tall order. I have yet to see any works regarding Thai society that I have any scientific validity- but I am not a professional, and all I see are in the popular press or on web-boards like this, so maybe there’s a wealth of excellent research out there that I’ve not seen. My presence here is part of an attempt to find some. It’s been rather unsuccessful so far.

  It also seems unproductive to me to “eagerly await” work by a non-professional with no exprience or knowledge in a particular area, but if that’s the best you can do, don’t let me stop you.

  Best regards,

  HP Boothe

• 19 Srithanonchai // Feb 17, 2007 at 10:20 pm

  Mr. HP: So, you admit to being a non-professional with no experience or knowledge–but at the same time you claim that you are much smarter than everybody else who has done substantial work in the field of Thai studies over the past decades and thus can easily detect all their mistakes. Not a position that makes you look more credible, to say the least. Maybe, you should rely less on the popular press and web boards, and instead start visiting libraries? I also would not expect to see anything very substantial in those places you obviously prefer as sources of understanding.

Leave a Comment