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.