Talk:Research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Science (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Open (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Research is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Link to [Community Portal for Researchers from around the world Enables Researchers across disciplines to discuss and promote their Research] is relevant to the Research Page and should be included.

What do you think?

Oopsla 09:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Flood Warning[edit]

So XKCD has decided to create a dynamic comic that looks for the first NASDAQ-100 company listed in this page (http://xkcd.com/1193/). As such there may be a flood of edits throughout the day with people experimenting (I know I was tempted to...). So just keep that in mind. Its April Fools day after all. --Jaryth000 (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Misc[edit]

Who penned the, semi-facetious, maxim about the difference between plagiarism and research? --- Dave Tozier, E. Sacramento County, N. CA

It would be helpful to state who is a proponent of basic research and who is a proponent of applied research. Alison9 16:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say that applied research may be more technology-based since it will be applied and basic research could be natural sciences? Maybe the focus of this is what G.hartig says, where is the line drawn between the two?MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tough call, Alison9. There's such an unclear line already between the two. A lot of my reseach could be considered pure, but if you find *one* use for it, it becomes applied! A handy magic trick for grants... G.hartig 16:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to be added to this.

Applied and Basic Research[edit]

Here is the content from the applied science article in case any of it can be incorporated into this article. I redirected it here.

Applied science is the exact science of applying knowledge from one or more natural scientific fields to practical problems. It is closely related or identical to engineering. Applied science can be used to develop technology. Leibniz (1646-1716) was the first to conceptualize this possibility and to forcibly try to convince society to take advantage of it.

Reference

-- Kjkolb 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I found that there's a pure science article as well. Should these articles stay separate or be merged and redirected here? If they are redirected here, they should be mentioned as alternative names. -- Kjkolb 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied from the applied science talk page: I strongly disagree with this (applied science) being a redirect permanently. Research is NOT the same thing at all, indeed research is used with pure science just as much as it is with applied science. I can accept that currently a couple of sentences isn't much help, and maybe a redirect to a decent article on science is helpful, but we need to have an article on this subject. This topic is listed as one of the core topics|150 core topics for Wikipedia 1.0. Walkerma 03:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow up:

  • There are 62 links to applied science, of which about 50 are links from articles. If the applied science article were a full-length article, this would probably be much more.
  • If applied science must be a redirect, may I suggest it goes to science? If the pure science article is merged with applied science, you get a very short version of science!

Walkerma 05:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the applied science article and I redirected basic science to pure science instead of research. I wasn't saying that applied science is the same as research. The research article explains basic research and applied research, which are often used interchangeably with basic science and applied science, respectively. -- Kjkolb 11:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Field test is a redlink[edit]

Field test is a redlink - someone might want to make it a redirect (not sure where) or an article. Linked from Junkers Ju 86 & LifeStraw. --Singkong2005 01:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


On Original Research for The facts (truth) of Science:

There is something "incredibly" factually and important about "feelings" (original research? ...) that no one here seems to understand, or at least not that way (of words? ...).

Science of Understanding (Makes all other science seem LESS "meaningful," relative to The facts, of a/the greater "Understanding".) 1 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When can we mix quantitative and qualitative data?

Original research[edit]

Original research should not redirect here. Original research is not the same as research. You can do research to collect known facts from disparent sources into one cohesive article, but this is not "original" research in the sense that that term is used in wikipedia. Wjhonson 01:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the link to the policy page, inline with standard practice as seen on this pageAssume good faith Wjhonson 19:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Research is a subset of invention[edit]

Suggest moving "Research is a subset of invention" to main description; it's not specific to basic research.

Ken 06:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

research methods[edit]

Anyone who has a particular interest in research/evaluation methods and methodology, there is currently a huge duplication between the Category:Research methods and Category:Evaluation methods. Please see the discussion on Category_talk:Research methods and add your opinion. JenLouise 05:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert[edit]

Although he does not specifically mention Wikipedia by name, Stephen Colbert refers to "open-source encyclopedias" on page 156 of I Am America (And So Can You!) and states that he believes "research" should now mean "speculation." Should this article be protected against vandalism based on previous Colbert-related strikes?Mobo85 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Irony[edit]

Does anybody else see the gross irony of research needing citations for almost half a year? Funny. • Freechild'sup? 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


added a link[edit]

added a see also link to conceptual framework. It is a techinique used in many areas of research to outline courses of action or preffered approach to a problem.

active/passive research[edit]

I don't see much if anything here about active reearch verses passive research. The same thing by another name would be fine. By active research I mean something where the researcher controls the situation. A simple example of active research would be if you try using different ratios of portland cement to sand and test them to see which is stronger. A simple example of passive research would be study of nature where the researcher observes but trys not to interfere. Jane Goodall would be one of the leading passive researchers in most cases.

I could add a discription of this and if it was simple enough for most anyone to understand and confirm I think it should be acceptable but if someone more involved with research or with a source did it that would be even better.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


It doesn't appear there is much on this at all. These are all specific characteristics of various research designs (the active and passive research design features described above). It would be nice to have them laid out by name so that these terms can be referred to instead in the research design descriptions. In this field I think anything that helps further label/categorize can be particularly helpful. There are so many nuances and so much detail that needs to be remembered that clearer categorization in generally a plus.

Naala337 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition of 'research'[edit]

"Research" (in context as an article) is, (and should only be) relevant to scientific investigation, Period. Any other uses of the term Research can also be defined in their own applicable environment, provided adequate references from appropriate sources. However, I do not believe this article should be further diluted too much outside of the scientific arena purpose it serves to describe. Article must identify serious academic purpose and not necessarily describe a person researching a family tree, for example. Does anyone have any objections to this proposal of maintaining certain limitations/restrictions for this article? --Lperez2029 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The basic definition of the term 'research' is as follows: Research is the search to find whether the property identified through one is common to all or not. The definition embodies the design of every reaserch - scientific or non-scientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeyamalini (talkcontribs) 04:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some topics that could be touched in an article on research include: research ethics; research for company purposes (e.g. market research); issues to do with with transparency in funding of research. Chrisemms (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not include people who are researching a family tree, but I don't believe that it should be confined to just scientific research. It says in the first paragraph that research and development of methods and systems is one purpose of basic research. I think that marketing research is a huge component of this type of research and shouldn't be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNiceGuy1113 (talkcontribs) 03:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Matter[edit]

I disagree with Ohms Law (WP contributor) assessment because energy is included in matter as well. What is the matter of Any (scientific) subject -- In the realm of relativity, matter can be equated to energy via the equation E = mc2. In the realm of cosmology, other forms of matter and energy, such as dark matter and dark energy are invoked to explain the behavior of the observable universe. --Lperez2029 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Research Center redirect[edit]

I think we should go ahead and create an actual page where we list research centers (similar to the Think Tank page). --Cpeter9 (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Would research centers be considered all types of research? This could be a huge list considering how many research universities there are. Let me know if this is something you would like to take on.MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Types of PhD Research[edit]

1. Causal Research When most people think of scientific experimentation, research on cause and effect is most often brought to mind. Experiments on causal relationships investigate the effect of one or more variables on one or more outcome variables. This type of research also determines if one variable causes another variable to occur or change. An example of this type of research would be altering the amount of a treatment and measuring the effect on study participants.


2. Descriptive Research Descriptive research seeks to depict what already exists in a group or population. An example of this type of research would be an opinion poll to determine which Presidential candidate people plan to vote for in the next election. Descriptive studies do not seek to measure the effect of a variable; they seek only to describe. have you got English language course for beginners


3. Relational Research

A study that investigates the connection between two or more variables is considered relational research. The variables that are compared are generally already present in the group or population. For example, a study that looked at the proportion of males and females that would purchase either a classical CD or a jazz CD would be studying the relationship between gender and music preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.118.241 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

scientific, historical, and ...?[edit]

where does artistic research fall into? is there something like that? if you are a painter, or musician, what do you do? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Artistic research falls under educational research, which needs a subcategory. Educational research: adds to our knowledge about existing issues, suggests improvements for practice by offering new ideas and approaches, and research informs policy (Creswell, 2008). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrye2215 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just housecleaning/organizational question: One main topic is listed as "Historical Method". One is "Research Methods". What is the rationale for not having "Historical Method" be a sub-topic under "Research Methods"? Thank you. Vista Beasley (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Vista

First Sentence[edit]

something is wrong with first sentence. I could not fix it, can somebody help? it starts with "{{Selfref|".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigehban (talkcontribs) 23:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar of the first sentence by inserting a second 'as'. teletrafficresearcher (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
== hypothesis ==

I want a detail explanation of hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.73.73 (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypotheses are declarative statements in quantitative research in which the reseacher makes an educated prediction about the outcomes of a relationship [1]

Expertise finding[edit]

I ran across this page today and I am not sure what to do with it. It isn't really focused on an encyclopedic topic, but I think it could be refocused. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Development[edit]

Since research funding organizations often emphasize they only fund research and not development it is important to also define development. Development appears to be any activity done with existing knowledge other than pursue new knowledge. For example, when Edison was testing materials to find the best one to use in the electric lamp, that was research. The moment he found it and started to make a light bulb for sale, that was development, until a need for a new method of fabrication appeared. So Development is like doing the math for a solution but not actually solving the real physical problem. Like creating a plan for a building without actually building it, unless everybody already knows the plan then it's not knew knowledge. Some funded projects make you wonder if their application just used research jargon to hide funding development work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.214.136 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Grass-roots research[edit]

How do you name grass-roots reseach properly? I mean research starting with an idea and goal, without having an institution at the beginning.--Warboerde (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical method: vandalism/very obscure phrase[edit]

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use historical sources and other evidence to research and then to write history. There are various history guidelines commonly used by historians in their work, under the headings of external criticism, internal criticism, and synthesis. This includes lower criticism and sensual criticism. Though items may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following concepts are usually part of most formal historical research:[9]

If I don't get feedback on this I will just delete it and reword. There seems to be no explanation of what this means anywhere, except perhaps in A Guide to Historical Method. This alone seems like decent grounds for removal, if a phrase is too obscure to be readily findable on the internet it's probably too obscure for Wikipedia. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy in discussion of steps to conduct research[edit]

The section "Steps in conducting research" and "Scientific Research" seem somewhat redundant, even though they are attempting to get at similar ideas about how to go about conducting research.  I think these two sections could be combined into 1 section.  Also, information about the steps involved in conducting qualitative research are not discussed.  Since this type of research does not involve a specific research question or hypothesis, this section should be modified in order to be more comprehensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily d slp (talkcontribs) 23:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In-text references and attribution to sources[edit]

I feel that the author's first and last name(s) should be included where they are being given credit for a thought/idea. For example one of the definitions of research is given and attributed to Creswell. It simply states 'Creswell' said, and even though it is cited at the bottom it seems informal and maybe a bit presumptuous to only put last names as though they are familiar or have been referred to before. Ideally, even a little bit on who they are (in terms of why we should believe what they said on the topic) would not be out of place in the in-text reference to the author. Naala337 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations 17 and 18[edit]

I noticed that these two citations aren't reliable resources. Citation 17 doesn't exist anymore, whereas citation 18 requires you to buy an e-book to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.10.22.2 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

XKCD-related vandalism[edit]

Warning, the current XKCD comic is partly generated by using Wikipedia articles ( https://xkcd.com/1193/ ). This is why some IP are modifying article such as this one or Technology : they are adding companies names such as "News Corporation" or "Yahoo" in this article to modify the comic. You will probably have to clean up this article in a few days to check that no random insert is still here. Ksempac (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Researcher[edit]

I've redirected Researcher here as it was basically just an unsourced WP:DICTDEF with a seemingly haphazard/spammy list of institutions tacked after the def. But there's also Researcher (job title) to consider merging, probably best suited here in a section discussing the professionalization of research (and thus appearance of formal job titles). Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Are researchers scientists?[edit]

Are researchers scientists? What do others think? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede says this: " There are several forms of research: scientific, humanities, artistic, economic, social, business, marketing, practitioner research, etc.". I don't think I could have said it better. In other words, some researchers are scientists, but not all are.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the edit under dispute is this one: [1]. I personally don't think Category:Scientists is a good parent for Category:Researchers given the diversity of that category for now - having it as a "see also" works better. The question is a bit misleading, and seems more like a rhetorical question, and could lead to endless disputes. I think the actual question we should answer is, should Category:Researchers be in category Category:Scientists. If you look at the current contents, my feeling is, No.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
All researchers are NOT scientists. Yes some do scientific research however there are other forms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research#Forms_of_research). This should not even be a discussion, rather looks like someone is making a Wikipedia:POINT. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 17:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Aristotle and Scientific Method[edit]

Can somebody please tell me why Aristotle list as creator of Scientific Method? Scientific method was created 1000 years after him. Aristotle was a philosopher not a Scientist.Teaksmitty (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You could try reading the reference you continue to delete. I'm sorry that you don't like Aristotle being listed in such a way but it takes more than your personal disapproval to make it "controversial". Helpsome (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a word is mention about scientific method on Aristotle page. He was a great philosopher that's what he is known by. Teaksmitty (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See History of scientific method#Aristotelian science and empiricism. And [2]. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Teaksmitty These are words from his article:" He contributed to almost every field of human knowledge then in existence, and he was the founder of many new fields. According to the philosopher Bryan Magee, "it is doubtful whether any human being has ever known as much as he did".[2] Among countless other achievements, Aristotle was the founder of formal logic,[3] pioneered the study of zoology, and left every future scientist and philosopher in his debt through his contributions to the scientific method.[4][5]" Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)