As someone who spent 40+ years of my professional life engaged in "academic research," I believe that research is simply the methods by which we acquire new knowledge. The final goal is to arrive at a better understanding of the issue. One line of scientific research requires that we propose an hypothesis and then test it to determine whether or not it is likely to be false (and therefore possibly true)--this is the hypothetico-deductive form of reasoning that is de rigeur for the physical, chemical and biological sciences. A second approach is empirical research, which emphasizes collecting as much data as possible on a subject and then trying to make sense of it by looking for associations and grouping of various pieces of information. Empiricism tends to be decried by "true scientists" because it relies on inductive reasoning.
Unfortunately, for so many of us, we are not in a position (not enough time, money, or training) to undertake rigorous field investigations of our hobby. One person who comes to mind who has undertaken solid scholarly research efforts is Robert Elgood, but folks like him are few in our field.
I would suggest that cataloging the various items in our collections is not really research. It makes us somewhat better informed but it seldom enlightens the field. We are not making new discoveries, but rather rediscovering what others have already reported. That is helpful and enlightening for us, and maybe for others, but I would not call it research.
In nearly 50 years of collecting edged weapons, I doubt that I have made more than a handful of astute original observations about them. Everything else I know has been the result of reading or listening to people who have more experience than I do. I would say that listening carefully to knowledgeable individuals within and outside the cultures that make the weapons of my interest has been the most important source of information for me. Some of my scientific colleagues say that this is unsubstantiated hearsay, others say it is good ethnographic research. Several of my best friends are anthropologists, and they understand the difficulties in doing solid research on weapons.
I don't think it is a bad thing that much of what we discuss here is "show and tell." If that's what the active membership wants, then that's what it gets. Also, trying to find out the what, where, when and how of the weapons we collect is only natural for the avid collector. The overall expertise here helps provide those answers.
However, I do agree with Alan when he says that the Forum has lost a little of its solidly based discussions, such as those on wootz steel (to name one example), that were present a decade or so ago. One solution may be for some of our very experienced members to write more articles that Lee can publish on these pages.
If you look at the statistics of who is using the forum (on the home page of this site), you will see that, of those logged on at any one time, registered members account for only about 10% of those looking at these pages--the substantial majority are visitors. Perhaps some of those who are not members could help make our discussions more factual by becoming members and participating actively. I can think of several folks whose opinions would be very helpful in our discussions, but they choose not to do so.
Ultimately, the output of this Forum depends on the input of its participants.
Ian.
|