Ian, I want to thank you for this wonderfully explained synopsis of these seemingly complex research systems, which even I, as a lay person, can understand. As a non-academic, that is without training in advanced educational context, I have always been fascinated by research, mostly out of inate curiosity, so I do not know the formal protocols.
However what I consider my 'method' is that of ratiocination, and as I have mentioned, the use of 'historical detection' as that is the primary field in which I study. I agree that the study of weapons is certainly more aligned with social sciences, that is of course anthropology, ethnography and of course history.
In the study of arms, most published references focus on typology, categorization and classification, along with varying degree of historical context. In virtually all references I have known, the authors note in introductions that not only do they expect corrections and rebuttal, but encourage it, hoping for furthering the core of knowledge.
There are however other aspects which are often, if not typically, avoided, in these references. These are the areas which are subjective, such as with metaphysics, superstition, symbolism and such features which occur in elements of weaponry. As these areas are nearly always subjective, that is, cannot be proven empirically. These therefore, are not academically sound and avoided in these arms references, at least usually. In some cases there are nominal allusions to these areas, but certain authors have, rather boldly, delved into such topics.
As I have suggested, such topics can be reasonably addressed, in my opinion even academically, as long as substantial transparency is observed, and adamant or conclusive statements are avoided.
I like the descriptions of these academic processes and systems of research defined in technical terms, as it sort of puts structure into the methods many or even most of us may use in some manner.
|