ACADEMIC RESEARCH
and WRITING
Peter Paolucci, Ph.D.
TWO TYPES OF SOURCES
POPULAR
ACADEMIC
Neither necessarily has truth but one is
more legitimate
See
for
more examples and (+/-) of both
http://www.kyvl.org/html/tutorial/research/infosources.shtml
TWO TYPES OF LIBRARIES
PUBLIC
UNIVERSITY
Housing two very different kinds of
materials
ACADEMIC PUBLISHING
1. Books
2. Journals (published monthly)
3. Peer review process
a. Sent to several 3rd party experts for scrutiny
b. Returned with: rejected, publish with minor
revs, major revs, or as is
ALAN SOKOL
Published an article through peer
review process that was “BS”
–
–
–
–
Only one article by one journal BUT
Made critical world wonder about the whole
process
Where does truth live?
What is the relationship between truth and
legitimacy?
PUBLISHING SCANDALS
Sokal's Hoax (see next slide)
The Scandal of Poor Medical Research (1/7)
About the Peer Review Process
The Abuse of Science
INTERNET / LIBRARY
KEY DIFFERENCES
Librarians standardize
everything, incl. booleans (and,
or, adj, not)
but
Internet search engines
standardize little (they compete)
LIBRARY SCIENCE
Is all about standardization
ISBN numbers
Library of Congress
Standard “subjects”
INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES
3 Kinds:
– Generic (Yahoo)
– Meta: search other engines
(Metacrawler)
– Dedicated
(Lawcrawler). See
http://searchenginewatch.com/
SEARCH ENGINES
–
–
–
–
–
Each
collects
filters
stores
eliminates
serves data …
differently
See http://www.learncanada.org/e2nginez/
PROBLEMS WITH
SEARCH ENGINES
Research and promotion = 2 sides
of same coin
Sometimes what you find has
nothing to do with your research
skills
HOW YOU ARE MANIPULATED
Research and promotion
= 2 sides
of same coin
What you find has little to do
with your research skills
Promotion can be
Passive (in the HTML code)
Active (submitting abstracts or
buying ads which are
measured in CPMs)
TWO APPROACHES
1. Searching with purpose
takes HUGE amounts of time
2. Exploratory (relying on serendipity)
takes STAGGERING amounts of time –more than
you have in any course
SOLUTIONS
The “answer” is NOT in the
library or on the Internet
…
It’s
in your head !
OBJECTIVES
1. Thoroughness
While you’re at it, research more than you need
Explore more than is necessary
Bring home (copies of) everything you come across
2. Accuracy & Meticulousness
Record all meta information (author, title, journal, URL,
date, call #, page #, editor, which library)
Where you were
What the date is
OBJECTIVES
3. Balance & fairness
Choose a variety of sources, opinions and viewpoints
Always choose current sources, but older ones are not
always wrong or outdated
4. Clarity in complexity
Retain paradoxes, dilemmas and inconsistencies
Don’t oversimplify
INTENTION
Not always to narrow
down your data, but to
open up possibilities and
generate choices
SCRUTINIZE SOURCES
The key is
TRANSPARENCY
Who wrote it? Credentials?
When? Why?
Are sources used documented and traceable?
EVALUATE SOURCES
1. Thoroughness
2. Accuracy
3. Balance
4. Clarity
= TRANSPARENCY
PREDICT !
Speculate specifically about
what you could find; what
you're likely to find
Even if wrong, it’s better to
approach research with
articulated assumptions
KNOWLEDGE / WISDOM
Knowledge =
–
Mere data (who, where, what, when)
Wisdom = data that’s been
1.
2.
3.
scrutinized
labelled
categorized and clustered (linked relationally and to
other data)
Wisdom = Why and how
MAP IT!
Try to locate data in a schematic
or map showing its relation to
–other
–other
–other
–other
data
problems
concepts
ideas
IMPOSSIBLE TO
UNDER ESTIMATE …
The time and trouble it will take
(power of bad luck)
The power of serendipity
(power of good luck)
PROCESS
Predict
Search (gather more than you need)
Evaluate
Document / record
Cluster/group/categorize
SOME GOOD SOURCES !
1. How to do research
2. Advice on Research & Writing
3. Scott Library resources (York)
5. Style, formatting documentation
(Monash U)
6.
Academic Integrity (avoiding
plagiarism)