|
|
What is Research?
Research is a natural human process that each of us engage in from earliest childhood to advanced age. As children, our research focuses on understanding and manipulating our environment, usually aided by toys and parents and later by friends and teachers. As adults, our research needs diverge to unique interests – often related to our occupation but also covering our family concerns and leisure hobbies.
The Cambridge dictionary defines research as a “detailed study of a subject, especially in order to discover (new) information or reach a (new) understanding.” The reader will note that in our examples above the “newness” included in the dictionary definition can apply on an individual level, or on a societal level. Discovering something new for an individual, even if it is knowledge or information known to others, is a valid research endeavor even if it does not warrant distribution in learned journals.
As adults, the methods we employ in carrying out our research change over time as well. In formal school we acquire the literacy skills that permit us to learn from the work of others. We also learn to conduct active tests by which our ideas are confirmed, refuted and refined. We acquire the skills of reflection and intuition by which all parts of our mind and our experience are directed towards solutions to our research problems. We learn to apply our research in real life situations in order to solve problems or further our practical understandings. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we learn to communicate our ideas. Through communication our ideas are further developed and honed. From all of these processes we learn that good research never leads to simple answers, but only leads us to further questions and opportunities to increase our knowledge.
Thus, research has many characteristics and qualities and operates in many different contexts. One of the most important of these qualities is quality itself. How do we know that the research we engage in as ordinary citizens, students or professionals is of high quality? To answer this question, we must first realize that perceptions of quality are themselves normative - determined by the community within which the research is distributed, applied and evaluated. In the 1970s most researchers clung doggedly to the belief that an unbiased “scientific methodology” guided and judged all our quality research. The scientific method purported to provide a set of principles and techniques with underlying assumptions of control, operational definition, validity and reliability that, if followed diligently, provided measures and guarantees of quality. However the scientific method began to be questioned by many researchers in the 80s and 90s. It was argued that there is sufficient evidence that all forms of knowledge are socially constructed and thus depend, at least to some degree, on consensual agreement for their veracity. This agreement is socially and culturally defined and thus our conception of quality relies on common understandings of context, tools and language to be judged as quality. The divergence of opinion between quantitative research (the ‘scientific’ paradigm) and qualitative research (the ‘interpretive’ paradigm) practices continues today. We discuss research paradigms further in Chapter 3.
Despite the differences in perception and the ontology of research, there are a few characteristics that define quality in research. First, quality research is important research. It addresses real concerns of importance to you, your colleagues and to a wider social context. Second, quality research is adroitly focused on solutions to an important problem. It follows, then, that it addresses questions that are answerable. It constantly surprises us to carefully read the research questions drafted by beginning researchers, only to discover on close reading that answering the question is either logically, philosophically, or ethically impossible! Third, quality research is systematic. By this we mean that quality research involves more than “hit and miss” probes into a bewildering environment. Through careful planning, attention to detail and reflection, the research process develops or adopts a structured approach that attempts to reveal as much as possible about the variables of context that affect the objects of our investigation. Fourth, quality research is transparent. From the extreme replication imperatives of the science laboratory, to the thick descriptions of the ethnographic researcher, quality research attempts to make the process of research as visible as possible so that it can be understood, if not replicated, by the interested observer. Fifth, quality research is made publicly available. Despite the growing practice of hiding research results to protect their commercial value, it is important that research be made visible, primarily so it can be validated within a social context. Research also needs to be made visible in order to contribute to the human condition. In an increasingly commercial world it sounds naive to be promoting free distribution of research results – yet we are reminded of Isaac Newton’s famous quote “If I saw further, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants.” We will not benefit from the view from others’ shoulders, if the results of their research are hidden behind commercial or political barriers. Fortunately, the Net provides new platforms for making research visible, and is even underlying the popular (if multiply attributed) insight that “information wants to be free” (Clarke, 2000).
The use of the Net in itself adds little intrinsic value to enhancing the quality of research. However, like any useful tool in the hands of a skilled practitioner, the Net can provide opportunities and techniques that enhance many components of our research practice. In this book we attempt to illustrate through instruction, hints, our experiences, and examples the means by which the Net can be used to improve research practice. This book also discusses some of the perils of conducting Net-based research. While the Net provides many new opportunities to improve our research practices, it also introduces new problems and challenges.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological review, 84, 191-215.
Benedikt, M. (1991). Cyberspace: Some proposals. In M. Benedikt (Ed.),
Cyberspace: First steps (pp. 119-224). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bradley, J. (2000, January). Online business still needs the basics. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonceo.com/archive/jan00/0100-E-Com.html
Clarke, R. (2000). Information wants to be free. Retrieved from
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF.html
Eastin M., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of the
Digital Divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 6(1), Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/eastin.html.
Jenkins, S. (2000). Internet glossary. Retrieved from
http://www.unisa.edu.au/itsuhelpdesk/faqs/glossary.htm
Stefik, M. (1996). Internet Dreams: Archetypes, Myths, and Metaphors. Cambridge,
MS: MIT Press.
|
|
