Where next for PSMs - a grass-roots revolution?

Over the last 30 years, the field of problem structuring methods (PSMs) has been pioneered by a handful of 'gurus'—the most visible of whom have contributed other viewpoints to this special issue. As this generation slowly retires, it is opportune to survey the field and their legacy. We focus on the progress the community has made up to 2000, as work that started afterwards is ongoing and its impact on the field will probably only become apparent in 5–10 years time. We believe that up to 2000, research into PSMs was stagnating. We believe that this was partly due to a lack of new researchers penetrating what we call the 'grass-roots community'—the community which takes an active role in developing the theory and application of problem structuring. Evidence for this stagnation (or lack of development) is that, in 2000, many PSMs still relied heavily on the same basic methods proposed by the originators nearly 30 years earlier—perhaps only supporting those methods with computer software as a sign of development. Furthermore, no new methods had been integrated into the literature which suggests that revolutionary development, at least by academics, has stalled. We are pleased to suggest that from papers in this double special issue on PSMs this trend seems over because new authors report new PSMs and extend existing PSMs in new directions. Despite these recent developments of the methods, it is important to examine why this apparent stagnation took place. In the following sections, we identify and elaborate a number of reasons for it. We also consider the trends, challenges and opportunities that the PSM community will continue to face. Our aim is to evaluate the pre-2000 PSM community to encourage its revolutionary development post-2006 and offer directions for the long term sustainability of the field.

Getting along with others:an examination of the ethnomethodological roots of perference organization and its relationship to complimenting

The well-established sociolinguistic literature on complimenting claims that compliments are formulaic (Manes and Wolfson 1981). The purpose of this thesis is to demonstrate that the claim is invalid, to describe an alternative approach to the study of compliments, and to draw on an extensive collection of compliments in order to show that complimenting is a diverse, interactive process. A prerequisite for such work is a means of deciding whether a given utterance is a compliment, but this issue is neglected in the literature. The conversation analytic notion of preference appeared capable of providing this criterion, but research revealed that it was too ill-defined to serve such a purpose. The thesis was, therefore, obliged to clarify the notion of preference before applying it to a study of compliments. The necessary clarification was found in the enthnomethodological roots of conversation analysis, and the thesis provides a clear and consistent means of determining whether utterances are preferred to dispreferred. The criteria used in the determination of preference are applied, in the final chapter, to the study of compliments. The results of the study contrast markedly with those of the sociolinguistic researchers, and they provide significant grounds for rejecting the claim that compliments are formulaic.