What does fact findings really mean?

What does fact findings really mean?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Gen. Wiranto, the Armed Forces commander in
chief, stated that the newly released report of the Facts Finding
Commission has overstepped its mandate. It was assigned to
establish facts, and not to dwell upon analyses.

Dr. Nurcholish Madjid commented that this report will create
unnecessary debates in society. In his opinion the Commission
should confine itself to finding "hard facts", and not conducting
analyses.

These two comments made me feel confused. Why?

Because the way I have been taught there is no research, no
investigation without analyses. Finding facts or "collecting
data" as researchers call it, is only one step among the many in
any investigation or research inquiry.

Some researchers even say that facts without analyses are
meaningless. Just look at the research institutions within the
government bureaucracy. They have mountains of data. But since
they have not been sufficiently analyzed only very little meaning
has been extracted from these data.

In any decent inquiry, analyses are always carried out in two
stages, preliminary and auxiliary. Analyses carried out at the
preliminary stage give only descriptive meaning. The deeper
meanings contained in the data are obtained through auxiliary
analyses. These are done by arranging and rearranging existing
data in various different manners. Results of these data analyses
are called "research findings".

Auxiliary analyses can be conducted in a concise or lengthy
manner, depending upon whether the researcher wants a simple or
refined conclusion. The more sophisticated the finding a
researcher aspires to, the deeper he or she must dwell on the
probable meanings hidden in the collected facts or data.

Sophisticated research findings require lengthy auxiliary
analyses. The danger faced by ambitious researchers is always
that they spend too much time on analyses and not enough time on
figuring out the meaning contained in the research findings. It
should be mentioned in this connection that investigations or
research aimed at discovering configuration of causalities --
what caused what -- in a big or complex event always require
analytical operations which must be executed through carefully
designed methodologies.

There is still another thing that made me feel confused.
According to what I have learned any serious research or
investigation is always aimed at finding truth and the meaning of
the found truth. And if the phenomenon to be investigated is so
complex like the riots last May, then to find truth behind the
myriad of confusing facts and the meaning of such a colossal
event is not a simple matter.

Personally I think that a period of three months for such an
important investigation is just too short, much too short. Within
such a limited time what we can realistically hope for is that
the Commission clearly reveals what was actually happening, how
things happened, and a provisional and superficial explanation
why they were happening. Such a report will reveal only the outer
layers of this big national enigma.

It should be remembered in this regard that in this kind of
investigation there are two kinds of truth that have to be
discovered, that is "factual truth" -- meaning everything that
corresponds to realities in the field-and "normative truth",
meaning everything that corresponds to the existing norms.

This means that the Commission has actually to carry out two
kinds of research within such a short period, empirical research
and normative research. This is just an impossible task, since
empirical and normative research are two kinds of inquiry which
require very different methodologies and techniques. The
philosophical foundations are the same, but the actual acts of
inquiry are different.

In any research community a statement can be regarded as
"factually true" only when it is supported by three elements:
evidence (verified data), rules or logic (validity of analytical
procedures), and common sense.

If these three requirements are met, then a statement
containing factual truth will always be meaningful.

Meaningfulness has four dimensions: experience, rule (logic or
principle), selective elaboration, and expression. Thus any
statement can be accepted as meaningful only if it is anchored in
real experience, if its formulation proceeds along the standards
of scientific rules, if its elaboration is done in a carefully
selected way, and if it is expressed in terms of probable truth.

When summaries of the Commission report were released in the
newspapers my first reaction was that of admiration. I admire the
Commission's courage, frankness, and fairness. I also admire the
way the chairman of the Commission, Marzuki Darusman, responded
to the various comments and criticisms.

Upon further reflection, however, I think that the analyses
carried out by the Commission could have been extended. The chain
of causalities within this shameful incident has not been
exhaustively explored yet. But considering the limited time
granted to the Commission, I think that what was released was
really the maximum that could be attained.

Does the Commission succeed in revealing the meaning of the
affair? Its meaning for the nation's reputation in the current
world situation? Its meaning for the building of a democratic
Indonesian government and society in the future?

These big questions were not even touched in this
investigation. But again it was not the fault of the Commission.
It was the fault of the government which gave the Commission only
such a limited time to complete such a big job. But does the
government really want the Commission to find and reveal these
big meanings to the public and the world?

Frankly, I doubt it.

Back to my original statement, I am really confused by the
government's reactions to the released report. Whereas I think
that the study is not quite finished yet and should be extended,
the government thinks that the Commission has overstepped the
limit of its mandate, and that it should refrain from analyzing
the found facts (data). I am also confused by Nurcholish Madjid's
comment.

Whereas I think that the Commission should find the meaning
behind the entire affair through deeper scrutiny of the research
findings, Nurcholish said that the Commission should limit itself
to finding the "hard facts". Does he really mean to say that
analyzing the "hard facts" to obtain "research findings" and
reveal their meanings are redundant investigative acts? I just
can't believe it!

There are moments when I think that perhaps I am just too old
to understand all the phenomena occurring during this confusing
time in this confusing country. Perhaps I believe too much in
what I have learned in the "old school" and have unknowingly
become its "captive".

Is it possible that a "new school" has arisen now that
contradicts and nullifies all methodologies and logical rules
developed by the "old schools"?

I don't know. I am just too confused.

The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.