"Do Your Own Research" - Are *You* Doing *Your* Own Research?

[Kooky]

Ever heard of "literature research"? It is one of the first thing you do when starting a research project. Let's see what data already exists, what hypothesis, what new experiments are already in progress or planned. Literature research is why scientific papers usually include a long list of references. I count reading up on the current scientific literature as "research". I do that when I'm able to read the papers. (If not I have to fall back on trusted science communicators.)

Yes, and if you've ever written a paper then you already know that just repeating existing papers without evaluating them in some kind of methodological framework isn't really considered research in and of itself. Also, what you fail to mention is that even this kind of literature research is being conducted by people with at least minimal training in, and exposure to a particular academic field.

Nobody would (and should!) take my random collection of physics articles I found with a Google search seriously as a form of academic research.

Yet that is the absolute ceiling of scientific rigor and competency people on internet forums tend to reach when they talk about "doing [their] own research".

 

[Erebus]

Sure, in that case, there's really no difference between Flat Earth and the Germ theory of diseases. They were, after all, both devised by men long dead and none of us has conducted any experiments to confirm either of them.

In practice, of course, I've yet to see anybody subscribe to that level of epistemic nihilism.

This bit was a weak attempt at humour. That doesn't always translate well over the internet.

For the most part, the people who are attempting to publish an academic paper probably aren't going to treat a bibliography in the same manner as a first year student.

Supported by personal observations I gathered throughout my long time on the Internet, I'm going to put forth the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of people who find sources that confirm their beliefs are very much convinced that they have sufficient knowledge to evaluate these sources as accurate and reliable.

Agreed.

And even if they are not, they will still perform as if they are.
As in - a massive portion of RF alone is dedicated to people with little or no specialized knowledge in the fields of science, philosophy, politics or even theology passionately argueing topics they, by all accounts, have a rather uncertain grasp of. I am including myself in this, by the way.

Also agreed. I'm not sure RF has ever had a member who restricts themselves solely to areas in which they have significant expertise.


Please don't take what I wrote to be a defence of anti-vaxxers and their ilk. My point with this is that not all forms of research are equal, not all sources are equal and not all understandings of a subject are equal. Some forms of research are, to put it bluntly, crap.

I would include in this some of the research done by people who did significantly more than read an online article. The authors of The Bell Curve put a hefty time investment into their work and certainly explored a variety of studies, arguments and counter-arguments. They also have the academic credentials that the overwhelming majority of us lack. However, it's hard to overstate just how flawed their research was. They heavily relied on sources that confirmed their biases and this is one of the reasons I said "What sources did you use?" and "What sources did your sources use?"

 

[Vitality]

Oh, I got out of academia before I even could get in properly. I just know a bunch of people who used to work there, and read about the experiences of people who still do. So take whatever I say with the appropriate amount of salt or spice or your choice.

My point is that not only do scientific standards vary wildly between different academic fields, how they are being applied and in what form and by which method can be even more ideosyncratic to those particular areas of research.

To illustrate my point, not too long ago I read an opinion piece from a historian; he talked about the differences between the approaches of historians and political scientists to historical data, and whose takeaway was that even when evaluating the same data points, the two fields tend to come away with very different conclusions simply based on how they traditionally approach data and how they contextualize it within their theoretical frameworks.

A historian would be highly skeptical of their data set's validity, accuracy, and completeness, assume them to be contingent on a host of unknown variables, and therefore be very reluctant to generalize at all, while a political scientists would see the formulation of generalized hypotheses based on that data set as the entire point of the exercise. And so the two would arrive at very different conclusions based on the exact same data, for no other reason than the unspoken assumptions and practices about the data they are working from.

(This is, of course, assuming that none of the people involved had any particular axe to grind or pet theory of their own to advance, which, from what I know of academia, is an already extremely optimistic assumption to make.)

I'll try to see if I can dig it up again.

That is a good illustration of what I meant by being taught to evaluate information. It’s not enough to simply collect and interpret data. The methods of evaluation and parameters matter. When I go to a source of something I am learning about these are things I look at. Sometimes that requires further digging into a particular field of interest.

My background is in health sciences, collecting data for meta analysis of various public health issues used to assess needs for the development of programs. We also looked at the instruments used in evaluation of program effectiveness and made adjustments as necessary.

I always find it interesting to read about studies that come to different conclusions using the same data and how various types of bias influence outcome.

Makes me wish I had stayed in that field, but acoustic design is more fun lol

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I just avoid using the phrase “I’ve researched that.” In favor of “I’ve looked into that”, or “I’ve read some papers on that”. My scientific training/schooling has taught me to be pretty good at spotting hack job “research” and conclusions among the responsible stuff.

I also chose “You’re not the boss of me.” Since that seemed the most truthful and likely. Especially since I work for the federal government, and I don’t think that you @Kooky are likely to be Joe Biden. (And even if you are, you cannot afford to admit it online).

 

[syo]

Who on RF is doing their own research, and how?

I meditate.

 

[Heyo]

I meditate.

That is a valid part in researching meditation.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, and if you've ever written a paper then you already know that just repeating existing papers without evaluating them in some kind of methodological framework isn't really considered research in and of itself. Also, what you fail to mention is that even this kind of literature research is being conducted by people with at least minimal training in, and exposure to a particular academic field.

Nobody would (and should!) take my random collection of physics articles I found with a Google search seriously as a form of academic research.

Yet that is the absolute ceiling of scientific rigor and competency people on internet forums tend to reach when they talk about "doing [their] own research".

You are, sadly, right.

 

[syo]

That is a valid part in researching meditation.

Yup, it is.

 

[stvdv]

It's Saturday.
We sleep in on Sunday too.

The OP fails to understand that "research" can be
a variety of investigation kinds, ranging from physical
experimentation to merely searching already available
information. Each way can be appropriate, depending
upon what is being researched for what purpose.

True.
For crucial info I research myself
For non crucial info I Google

I don't Google to find faults in others
I do Google to find faults in myself

 

[sayak83]

Yes, and if you've ever written a paper then you already know that just repeating existing papers without evaluating them in some kind of methodological framework isn't really considered research in and of itself. Also, what you fail to mention is that even this kind of literature research is being conducted by people with at least minimal training in, and exposure to a particular academic field.

Nobody would (and should!) take my random collection of physics articles I found with a Google search seriously as a form of academic research.

Yet that is the absolute ceiling of scientific rigor and competency people on internet forums tend to reach when they talk about "doing [their] own research".

I actually do academic level research on lots of topics actually. But one cannot research everything of course.
Though if you look at the dictionary definition, meanings 2 and 3 is usually what is meant as research outside of academia,
Definition of RESEARCH

 

[stvdv]

What scientific studies have you conducted so far?

If you understand why I gave your OP the "Winner" frubal, you would have known my answer to your question

 

[stvdv]

I actually do academic level research on lots of topics actually. But one cannot research everything of course.
Though if you look at the dictionary definition, meanings 2 and 3 is usually what is meant as research outside of academia,
Definition of RESEARCH
View attachment 61752

Thanks

Good reply that can be useful for a specific group on RF

 

[Revoltingest]

I actually do academic level research on lots of topics actually. But one cannot research everything of course.
Though if you look at the dictionary definition, meanings 2 and 3 is usually what is meant as research outside of academia,
Definition of RESEARCH
View attachment 61752

An additional definition for discussion forums.....
Research
- culling ammunition that supports my argument,
& ignoring anything to the contrary.

 

[Kooky]

If you understand why I gave your OP the "Winner" frubal, you would have known my answer to your question

I am, of course, omniscient, and merely entertaining my less fortunate audience with questions for their own edification.

 

[stvdv]

I am, of course, omniscient, and merely entertaining my less fortunate audience with questions for their own edification.

Aha, that is a nice answer...I appreciate it

And definitely good|useful to know for future questions you ask

 

[Mock Turtle]

As mentioned by others, only as far as to try to find as much accurate information there is on any particular topic, which is daunting given that usually we are often not educated and/or trained as to assess such so as to pick out the most relevant from that not so much, but we have to use what we have. At least I was doing this before the internet came along so perhaps can recognise the pitfalls of only doing such via the internet. And the internet has given access to the views of actual people and their experiences along with much else, so many gains along with the problems of disinformation and such.

Most of us just don't have the commitment and/or time to do proper research - given that this is rather ground-level and often ground-breaking stuff - and hence our research is nearly always second-hand at best and often via the popularizers, like in psychology for example.

Perhaps, like some here, I have read some of the research material that is available (not so much though), but also like most, I don't have the access necessary so often required for such material.

And to add to this, I think the only serious research I have done - as to finding out the best information - has been related to the sexual abuse of children, paedophilia, avoidant personality disorders, and the last to do with sailing around the world. This last one abandoned due to the realisation that I would probably be too old and hence it being too dangerous - and probably much less enjoyable too.