5.5 Research And Evaluation

This Chapter looks at how research leads to development, and how evaluation of the kinds of developments that have led (and lead) to different methods of supporting very hurt people has implications for the type of research that we need to be doing.

My opinions in this respect have been formed by the type of research (and evaluation) that I have experienced on my journey and that seems to be the norm in the helping professions at present, coupled with what I feel are the needs of our Focus Group.

(I have touched on this subject, with a different focus, in the Sub-Chapter on Theory into Practice so some of it may look a little familiar).

The Chapter is divided into seven Sub-Chapters.

5.5.1                RESEARCH AND EVALUATION – INTRODUCTION

5.5.2                CRITIQUE OF SOCIAL RESEARCH WITHIN THE PILLARS

5.5.3                NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY VS. THE HELPING PROFESSIONS

5.5.4                IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH IN THE HELPING PROFESSIONS

5.5.5                EVALUATIVE RESEARCH

5.5.6                THE ROOT FOUNDATIONS IN OUR WORK

5.5.7                RESEARCH AND EVALUATION – CONCLUSION

If we break down the word research we see that it is re-search, which means, obviously, to search again.

I imagine it to be the difference between having a quick look at something (like we would if we were in a hurry), and looking in great detail at every aspect of it – taking loads of time and giving it our full attention.

Just to get us into the research zone – before we explore social type research – let us consider research in manufacturing, science and technology.

Obviously, the purpose of research in this field is that, by studying something and finding out more about it than is known already, something new can be manufactured.

But sometimes research is done because someone is interested in (or obsessed with) something, purely out of personal interest.  Often in the history of manufacturing, (or science and technology) something has been discovered by research that someone or a group of people were doing because they were passionately interested in the topic, and, from the discovery, something useful to humankind was invented.

This is a kind of solution looking for a problem discovery. The laser is often cited as an example of such a discovery and there are many others.

Now in contrast to what I might call accidental research, it was known since ancient times that steam had the potential to produce power, and then turn that power into movement that would do work; which would mean that humans (and animals) would do less work. 

However it took hundreds of years of research, experimentation, trial and error, mathematical developments, and later discoveries of iron, and then steel, to harness the potential of fuel such as coal before what we’d identify today as a working steam engine was built.

In industry and technology in general, research is a word that is often associated with development.

In all forward-thinking companies, there is a Research and Development Department, where new ideas are developed into practical things so that the company will have an edge on its competitors and make more profit.

Terms such as start-ups, incubation hubs, innovation centres, and accelerator programmes are used to describe these places.

They focus on how to grow the company with new business ideas, and then how to penetrate new markets.  Mostly the workers in such departments are creative people who are looked after a lot better than those in line manufacturing, and are highly valued because they are giving the company an advantage.

Another aspect of R+D in manufacturing is that, following the trial and error, experimentation etc. (which might take months or sometimes years) a prototype is manufactured.

A prototype is the manufactured item that will to be tested in the field before it can be marketed and sold to the general public.  It is common that during the field trials of the prototype, many adjustments are made so that the finished product will be as near to perfect as is possible.

When I think of prototype in the community sector I think of the term pilot scheme – the scheme that is set up to see how it goes before it is rolled out or scaled up to a wider population!

Social research is a little bit different to that which is described in the previous post.

Even though the caring industry (or the helping industry) may have elements that are privatised, most social research is not done with profit in mind – unless saving the Government money is deemed to be a kind of profit.

Rather, its intention is almost always to find out more about problems in society so that something will be done, or measures can be taken to solve the problems.  It generally feeds into the body of knowledge in academia where theories are developed on what might work better.

Most of these problems have been around as long as humans are around and we are still grappling with them.

One of the reasons for this is (as briefly discussed in the previous Chapter) that it takes a long time to translate theory into practice in the helping-people-in-distress professions.

Sometimes, just like science and technology, someone stumbles on something that works with people, and then this is implemented without too much interference from outside.  This often happens because someone is deeply interested in finding a solution and just goes with their instinct.

An example that springs to my mind would be the community L’Arche Homes in France and Canada founded by Jean Vanier for people who are intellectually challenged.  I am sure that you will think of others.  Generally, the ethos of such places, or movements, is difficult to maintain – particularly beyond the time of the idealistic founder – as they are open to a multitude of external influences and vested interests from the Pillars of whatever country they are in, as was described in the Chapters on Important Descriptions and Systems Theory.

Now I don’t pretend that this Chapter is a full, comprehensive account of all research done in social care, helping, social work etc.  It will, however, propose what might be the best topics for research to focus on if we are to promote new developments that have a good chance of effecting sustainable positive change in the lives of families in our Focus Group.

On a personal note, I am passionately interested in organisations carrying out research of relevance so that resources can be better directed and utilised.

After all, this website mostly resulted from much formal academic type research that I have read over the years, and (I believe anyway, and I hope that you agree) many years of informal research by me.

And on a final note, (like a lot of initiatives that I explore) the acid test for me in respect of research is that, if I was paying for it myself, would I commission it?

Many years ago I was at the launch of research undertaken by a prominent academic institution into the effects of drug misuse within a particularly vulnerable population. This research had cost €60,000.

One of the young men who contributed to the research had died of a drugs overdose between the time of doing the research and the launch. His father accompanied me to the launch and after the speeches and question and answer sessions, at the cup of tea and nibbles, he remarked to me that he was upset that so much money had been spent on the research and that his son, who had contributed to it, had died.

His point was that if the money that had been spent on the research had been available for counselling or other support type work for his son, and others like him, some of them might be alive.

Why someone who has a personal reaction to such research didn’t express that opinion at the question and answer session during the launch, but waited until an informal opportunity presented itself to say it to me illustrates the high-impact-low-noticeability intimidating power of the Pillars.

Nor would I have spoken up in a similar situation. It’s not easy to point out things that arise from how we feel at such top-down events where a passive audience is fed facts and figures by a speaker flying through a power-point presentation up on a podium. Generally, an atmosphere of self-congratulatory bonhomie prevails and offering contrary opinions always has a criticising-the-bride-at-a-wedding sort of feel to it. It’s just not done! But the real truth often leaks out in more informal get-togethers afterwards.

The reason that I mention the above incident is that uncensored views have contributed greatly to my understanding of how some people (many, I would say) in our Focus Group view the world of the Pillars – and  I feel very privileged to have been trusted enough to be the recipient of such opinions.

It gives me no joy to state that since that particular piece of research was launched the conditions – in respect of drug misuse – within the community where the research was done hasn’t changed much for the better.

Long before the statement that began the previous post was made, I was sceptical of social research.

My scepticism arose from an experience that I had when I was a novice street-worker, in the early 1990’s, and we were tasked with supporting young people from 14 to 18 – which was the age group that the Project I worked with at that time was restricted to.

After a short time it became very clear to my colleagues and I that there was a need to support younger children – and their families also.  Following much discussion with community leaders including teachers etc. a Government Department was approached to see if funding could be accessed to set up a programme to improve the prospects of children with high need aged (approx.) between 7 and 13-14.

As it so happened, at that time there was some movement towards this at Government level anyway so we were delighted when we got a positive response.  As we were happily waiting for some news that something would happen (i.e. that a Project of reasonable size employing, perhaps, three or four workers would be set up and would complement what we were doing on the street with the older teens) there came a sudden halt.

Stop………..

We were informed that the need had to be researched before the funding could be allocated!

Researchers then descended upon us to do it. While to be honest my memories of being researched are vague I remember being assured that they spoke with parents of children, teachers, youth workers, counsellors and many practitioners involved and after all that produced a report.

Eventually, (this was about 12 months later) one worker was recruited – to work on her own – to address the issue. The part that I remember most was that she was mandated to work only within the education system – and the parameters of her work were determined by the local primary school.

Despite her best efforts the situation did not improve that much and a good few of the children (I knew many of them) for whom, to my mind anyway, the Project had been intended in the first place did not fit the criteria for involvement and they dropped out of school anyway.

This was exactly the opposite of what was intended.

One criteria for involvement was that the child’s parent or parents would have to be involved in some school activity or other. As parents were from the Focus Group and had many of the characteristics that I described earlier, they did not feel too comfortable in the school environment. The school, it has to be said, made an effort too, but the cultural divide was too great.

I know at least two young boys who were excluded from that venture with tragic consequences for both in their teens.

I have no idea what the research to kick-start the Project cost but I am sure that I and my colleagues could have done it with a few concerned parents (probably mothers to be honest – many fathers were absent, some in prison) for far lower cost in a few weeks and produced recommendations that would have been far more meaningful.

I do not state that I am right here – but that is what I believe.

Furthermore, if the Project (and support packages for children) had had the families at the centre rather than the school I am sure that the outcomes would have been far better. 

Finally, it upset me a little that professional researchers (whether they were from academia or not – I can’t remember) got money to produce a report to describe a need that was dogs-in-the-street obvious to any practitioner while children suffered for 12-18 months – and thereafter were excluded.

I said in the Introduction that I suffer from a rare condition which is difficult to identify, not to mention cure – a mixture of idealism and naivety.

And when I was a young street-worker in the early-1990’s I was very naïve.

Around that time legislation was brought in which stated that all young people up to the age of 18 would be considered to be children and all the safeguards that applied to younger children would be applied to them also.  This had been a grey area for many years.  (In fact, I remember a boy of 15 serving a sentence in Limerick adult prison around that time – and no-one seemed to have a problem with it).

My co-workers and I were mandated to go on training days, seminars etc. to open our eyes to this new world of child protection and we were enthused by the lectures from principal social workers and academics about the dangers of neglect, emotional abuse etc. on children.

Because the Health Board and Department of Health placed so much emphasis on the necessity to protect children I believed that they actually meant it!

An enthusiastic colleague of mine suggested to me that, in the light of all the training and seminars etc., we’d do some local research on the number of children who were homeless in the area where we were doing our streetwork.  I agreed wholeheartedly and we identified about 6 (if my memory serves me right) teenagers, all male, of ages 15-17, who were either sleeping rough or squatting with friends in sheds or burnt out houses.

We then wrote what was, admittedly, a not-very-academic report, and I sent it straight to a high up child protection officer in what was then the Health Board. Now I was never a great fan of protocols and procedures – sometimes these issues just seem too urgent – and this was one of those, and sometimes I simply forget.

Surely, we thought, we’d get a response to this most serious child protection issue.  Surely someone would at least have a chat with us about what our opinions were on what might be needed to be done to support families and children who found themselves in this situation.  (As I said – I was a novice street-worker).

I heard nothing back for a while.  I was just on the point of enquiring if they received my letter + report (there were no emails in those days) when I was summoned to some kind of a hearing on foot of a letter that my Board of Management had received. I went to the meeting thinking that, at last, we’d get some action on this.

However, rather than the issue of children sleeping rough being discussed, I was given a lecture on how inadvisable it was to do unscientific studies that couldn’t be rigorously proven and verified with a control group (or something like that) and many other statistical tools that should be used that I hadn’t used.

I was then informed most unequivocally, that I was never to do such research again without authorisation – when the proper researchers would be engaged if funding was available from the Department of Health to do same.

I went away from the meeting with my wings fairly neatly clipped – actually, the whole thing felt like a disciplinary. It goes without saying that absolutely nothing was done about the homeless teenagers afterwards.

But ……….. all was not lost.

I learned an invaluable lesson about the priorities of the system, and how much it really cares.  And this, actually, was the first time that I began forming ideas about the role of the entities that I would later call the Pillars!

From quite a lot of reading that I have done over many years, conferences that I have been to and launches I have attended etc. I find that quite a lot of social research (though – I stress, not all) can contain a significant amount of repetition of research done previously.

Most bookshelves in workplaces in organisations that support families in distress contain many reports on issues like troubled families, children growing up in disadvantaged communities, effects on children of addiction, domestic violence, effects of imprisonment on families and children and many more similar topics all saying more or less the same thing, and all coming to the same conclusions.

In fact, I challenge any of you who have worked in this field for many years to meet 3-4 colleagues who are equally experienced, committed, reflective, and compassionate, and take a half day simply brainstorming and then another half day collating what you have written down about any one of the above subjects.

I’ll bet that you would come up with the same essential conclusions, (and probably be able to come up with some fairly sound common sense recommendations too), as researchers who might charge €60-70,000 [1] to produce a 120 page report with literary reviews, executive summaries, conclusions and recommendations [2].

The finished product from what I might call common knowledge research may not have academic polish, a comprehensive bibliography, statistical rigour, or a glossy layout but the result, i.e. the essence, would probably be much the same. And anyway, what might be lost in statistical rigour might be gained in qualitative accuracy.

It is, of course, acceptable, when students are doing final year projects in colleges, (or even Masters’ or Doctorate dissertations – though to the best of my knowledge a Doctorate is supposed to be completely original), that there might be some repetition of research that was done before.

However if we hand out large amounts of money for research we have a responsibility to ensure that 1): the area has not been researched before, at least in the recent past, in a similar vein and culture, and 2): the research done is methodologically original.  (I will offer suggestions later on originality).

I have seen serious amounts of money given to researchers (whether they are private or public – i.e. academic) – but when the Research is complete, little (or usually nothing) is allocated to alleviate the distress that the research uncovers.

Generally I find the vast majority of what I read quite interesting, but I have to honestly say that I struggle to find truly original discoveries, results, thinking, conclusions, recommendations etc. in much of it! I also think that doing academic research tees us up to be in the image and likeness of the Pillars – so the necessity to continually do research is perpetuated.

Finally, anytime I read about social research to be done, or anytime I am involved in it in some peripheral way I hear about ethical concerns.  Researchers go to considerable trouble to assure everyone that they are ethically aware and will do everything in their power to adhere to best practice in respect of vulnerable peoples’ right not to be harmed. 

In my opinion, the one major ethical concern in research (which I don’t think that I have ever seen written down – nor has any researcher mentioned it to me) is that nothing changes for the vulnerable people as a result of the research done.

[1]. Yes – I have come across research costing that much money!  And unbelievably, when I was writing this website, during the worst housing crisis in living memory in Ireland, the Government was spending money doing research on the effects of long-term homelessness on children’s education.  Surely we know this already?

[2]. Some years I was involved in a research project commissioned by a highly regarded agency which was carried out by one of the most prestigious (and I’d say expensive) social research companies in Ireland.  Those doing the interviews and collecting the data presented as not that interested.  The sample was, in my view, unacceptably small, with quite a lot of people not turning up for scheduled interviews.  The participants in the research displayed a low level of enthusiasm and nothing new (that was discernible to the participants anyway) happened as a result of it!

In this Sub-Chapter I will explore the differences between development in the manufacturing and technology and the helping people in distress fields.

In choosing what kind of research is appropriate for the latter I felt that it might be good to work back from development, which, in the normal course of events, follows research.

I think that this working backwards will help you understand where my opinions on research in this field came from, and how they were formed not only by what I experienced, but also the developmental context in which research is done.  (That is, the kind of expectations that people have in respect of what will be developed when the research is complete).

Firstly, has anyone ever researched how long it takes studies, or findings, or recommendations to become day-to-day standard custom and practice (i.e. why there is such disconnect between theory and practice) in the helping people in distress field when there is an almost seamless link in commerce/business, and engineering and science?

The reasons why were proposed in a previous Chapter and I will add a few more here:

~ Solving a technical or mechanical problem doesn’t involve our emotions whereas solving a human (or social) type problem usually does.

~ The reductionist nature of the solution often proposed does not match the systemic and/or holistic nature of the social type problem.

~ Because of its reductionist nature, a technical or mechanical problem can be broken down to individual parts and human problems can’t, so the mechanical problem is more manageable.

~ We can often make money quickly when we solve a commercial or engineering problem – the money that is made (saved) in solving a social problem is realised in the long term.

All these lead to a poor relationship between congruity [1] and theory into practice in social type work and helping people in distress; whereas in engineering congruence is generally high.  In teaching and medicine I’d estimate that it’s about half and half.

I think that another problem is that if we label something, lip service can then be paid to it.  Phrases like social capital, zero tolerance, even mandatory reporting are all bandied around and there is an illusion that something different is being done because a new label has appeared.

And – a favourite trick – sometimes something is called one thing, and after some time it’s called something else, which gives it the appearance of newness.

Development of new products, processes or methods of working has different roots and follows different paths in the fields of technology and helping people which I will attempt to describe in the next post.

[1]. What I mean by congruity in this context is that the practitioners practice (or do) in the field what the theorists discover will work well in the lab.

One of the most interesting things (for me anyway) about new developments that arise in the helping profession (take, for example, Person Centred Therapy that we covered in the Chapter on Modalities – a development that happened in the 1940’s and 50’s) is that the new developments often use knowledge that has come from ancient wisdom, known since the dawn of history.

Take unconditional positive regard, for example, one of the cornerstones of Person Centred Therapy.

There are numerous examples (in respect of the benefits to humanity) of treating people in a non-judgmental way, or giving kindness and expecting nothing in return, in ancient texts that people the world over, for thousands of years, have considered to be worth following as a blueprint for living.

The only ancient text that I am familiar with is the Christian New Testament (and I’m not even too familiar with that) which is the basis for Christianity, a religion followed by billions of people worldwide.  In the New Testament unconditional positive regard – i.e. giving and not expecting anything in return – is referenced a number of times. The one that jumps out at me is the story of Mary and Martha, where Jesus esteemed someone who did nothing as much as the person who worked hard. I know a lot less about other major world religions but I’d say that there are similar messages about loving one’s fellow man, tolerance and forgiveness.

Another element of Person Centred Therapy, congruence (being genuine, true to myself, my beliefs, what one sees is what one gets etc.) is also promoted as being of importance for good living in ancient stories, legends, fables, etc. and it runs like a thread through the entire New Testament.

And the third core condition, empathy (being able to imagine what it is like to walk in another’s shoes) is evident in the well-known instruction to love my neighbour as myself to mention but one.

And that is only person centred therapy!

If we picked any of the humanistic modalities (of which person centred therapy is one, along with gestalt, existential, reality therapy, trans-personal or even modern solution focused brief therapy – I’m  not going to describe all these – you can look them up if you like) it would be the same.

If we fast forward from the 1940’s to the early 2000’s, studies on the brain have shown that unconditional love, creativity, trust and warmth, and techniques like meditation and mindfulness produce chemical activity which has positive effects on the brain which in turn has a healing effect on the psyche – without application of any external chemicals or medication.

The point that I am making here is that the therapists of the 1940’s and 1950’s who discovered new ways of supporting people in distress and then laid down the foundations for humanistic modalities, and the neuroscientists who from the early 2000’s to date have been making discoveries in the neural activity of the brain that are rigorously, scientifically proving the theories of the mid-20^th century humanistic psychotherapies, are telling us very little that is really new.

They are rediscovering old wisdoms, proving them using logic and science, and then repackaging them for a modern audience so that we (the modern audience) will be swung over to their way of thinking and choose such methods when we are forward-planning in respect of helping people in distress.

And we, being immersed in technology for a few centuries now, are more receptive to such arguments than we would be if they were from an ancient text.

For example, recently I read a fascinating article about new studies on how the adolescent brain develops, and how discoveries made about the limbic system and prefrontal cortex explain why adolescents take a lot of risks.

As I said, I am fascinated by this research and love reading about it – but no one can deny that it has been known for millennia that adolescents take more risks than mature adults – and adolescent risk-taking and immaturity is referenced in literature and stories since ancient times.  (As the old saying goes, adolescents are old enough to know it’s dangerous but young enough to do it anyway).

The essential message of the Johari Window, (i.e. that the unconscious mind influences our behaviour and we are not aware of it) has also been known to humanity for a long time.

An example might be Napoleon, when asked who his best General was, replied, General Luck.  This was not a play on words, he was acknowledging (perhaps unconsciously – but I didn’t know Napoleon that well so I can’t be sure) that luck is not a totally random phenomenon, rather it is somehow or another caused by something that is within us that we might not be aware of, and Napoleon twigged this!

And talking about ancient, linked to the above are the endless studies done, and our fascination with how other mammals behave, in particular our close cousins chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and similar species.

The studies into their behaviour are done because we feel that we can learn something from them about relationships, identity, conflict resolution, and even childhood growth and development.

Now the fact that the content is not new doesn’t mean that they are worthless, or that I (as a fan of person centred therapy and the discoveries of neuroscience) want them to stop.

Far from it – in fact the more that the ancient texts (and the words and exhortations of poems, songs, plays, films and art of all descriptions in every culture all over the world) are proven to contain the more enlightened ideas in respect of helping very distressed people the sooner compassion, love, creativity, warmth, trust, relationship, understanding, empathy and genuineness will – in our choices of methods of healing very emotionally distressed people – not only complement the world of pharmacology and psychiatric drugs, but, over time, become the dominant modality.

Neuroscience [1] is bringing, and will bring about in the future, great changes in the way we help people and educate and support children – a lot of the time proving to the sceptical that which has always been known to the wise. Much of the reason for this is that, as I said above, the sceptical are very impressed by technological and scientific knowledge.

And, to finish this post, I am sure that prophets like Jesus, Muhammed and many others did the same thing – i.e. drew on ancient wisdom for the people of their times. 

Summary:  I will call this type of development circular development, where developments do contain new and innovative elements and knowledge, (such as the role of the limbic system/prefrontal cortex in risk-taking by adolescents) but also contain knowledge almost always known to us in some form.  The existing knowledge is repackaged (and sometimes reinterpreted) to adapt to existing cultural and social conditions – as I explained in a previous post – to make it attractive to the general public.

In the next post I will look at what I will call stepped development.

[1]. It is probably a bit over the top to say that neuroscience is to our education, well-being etc. what the silicon chip is to electronics – but it is certainly bringing fresh impetus to the assertions of person centred psychotherapy that the problems, as described above, that have always beset society are rooted in our emotional selves.

In contrast to the previous post, I don’t believe that there are many modern developments in science and technology that involve rediscovering what was known thousands of years ago and/or has always been known in different guises or forms. 

While undoubtedly many things that were known have been forgotten or lost the vast majority of great technical innovations happen in a stepped, linear fashion. What is discovered is built on what is known already – but it is not really known before it is discovered.

Take, for example, the silicon chip.

This is the little device that has, arguably, brought more changes to the world in the last 50 years than there have been at any time in human history.

No-one in Brian Boru’s day (the early 11^th Century) knew what a silicon chip was.  They knew what sand was, from which silicon, the material that makes the chip, comes from.  But they had no idea that in another thousand years, sand (and related silicon based material) would be processed/synthesised etc. into tiny pieces invisible to the naked eye and be used in the way it is nowadays.

The journey from sand and stones to the silicon chip involved thousands of painstaking experiments and application of complicated theories in physics and chemistry, materials science, mathematics, applied mathematics and engineering in a wide array of disciplines too numerous to mention.

One development led to another, accidental happenings were important as were communication across many different scientists and engineers in different universities and laboratories in different countries, loads of trial and error and the all-important harnessing of electricity [1] before the unique properties that silicon had were discovered and then used to effect change in humankind.

I am writing this on a table made of wood.  I have no idea what as yet undiscovered properties it might have that might bring significant changes to the world.

The same is the case with plastic.  People in the mid-1800’s knew what oil was, but they didn’t know that it would some-day be synthesised into a compound known as polyethylene that would then become plastic that could replace metal, stone, wood, and paper and that would never rust, chip or rot away in the ground and decay.  Similarly, I have no idea what uses plastic will have in even 20 years’ time!

Let us look now at technological developments in healing emotional distress.

As I have stated already, the belief grew that because science brought such advances to healing physical illnesses the same could be done in healing mental illnesses. This made a lot of sense when you think of it.

But unlike humanistic therapies, mainstream medical healers (predominantly psychiatrists and chemists) generally did not tap into ancient wisdom and what was already known.

In fact, what was already known was generally dismissed, thought to be old-fashioned and best assigned to history.  Alleviation of mental illnesses focused instead on new developments in science, biochemistry etc. and how various mixtures of chemicals affected the brain.

True, some of the pharmacological drugs that were (and still are) manufactured used knowledge known for centuries about how herbs, roots, and plants had the potential to change moods and mental states, but the drugs synthesised were seen as new.  They bore very little resemblance to the original herbs, roots and plants, and most importantly, the new drugs had potential to make vast profits for huge corporations, and they still do.

Summary:  I will call this type of development stepped development, where a development, or invention, (like the silicon chip) is a new link added to a very long chain where the previous link is a more primitive version, (or a less developed version), of the latest.  The new link will appeal to the general public because it will solve a mechanistic societal problem, (such as how to go halfway around the world in one flight, or wash clothes quieter) increase comfort, convenience, or simply appeal to that part of us that loves novelty.

[1]. Actually, electricity is an interesting one!  The fact that electricity (and magnetism) existed had been known since ancient times, through lightning and other observed phenomena.  However its usefulness to humans was made possible by experiments that were done from the 1600’s to today, largely in a stepped, linear manner.