Academic research: musings

[ariel]

Alan,
Sorry if i did not respond t your earlier quesion. I kind of missed it within you message.
Your current one is clearly well demarcated and stated. So, here is my my response:

Our posts on this Forum are by and large a mix of information search and social interactions . As such, they are practically immune to any critique, and definitely to any harsh one. Reasoned disagreements are part and parcel of any discussion of any object or opinion ( “You are mistaken, in country A it is called not B but C. And here is the reference”), but sarcastic remarks, personal insults and such are unacceptable and the moderators must be harsh with the offender.


This is my view of a soft approach: friendly, respectable, sincere ( without being denigrating) and forgiving. In short, kind of family chat at the New Year table ot just Sunday dinner. By and large we practice it already, so it is not a great burden to continue.

Things change if one of the Forumites posts an article -like treatise on the Forum, with the reason for doing it, data, discussion with references. This is a different ball of wax and should be treated as a scientific ( or “academic”, if you prefer) contribution. The contributor decided to produce a serious piece of work and the greatest compliment from other Forumites is to take it seriously. Sometimes, the post contributed to the Forum is an early draft of a journal paper the contributor reveals to his friends (sic!). Their frank comments may be immensely helpful. I know it very well: I often send my own “ main job”:-) papers to friends for their perusal and very (!) frank comments. Saves me a lot of grief with the subsequent journal referees. My ego may be bruised, but my paper improves markedly. I also get similar requests from friends and do my best to return the favor.

This is a harsher, but still friendly approach.

The last one deals with articles and/or books submitted for publication elsewhere and peer review or published without the “ pre-screening” whether by Forumites or external colleagues. Here , if we want to be truthful and the topic is important to us we might go full forward and provide as harsh critique as the contribution deserves ( in our opinion, at least).
Again, no insults are allowed, but sarcasm is permitted when it is appropriate.
This is the “ harsh approach”. It should be factual, but pitiless.

This is the usual policy of all professional journals I know and definitely of the two I am editing now or edited in the past.

This is to prevent false or bad information to pollute the pool or to alert colleagues that a particular piece of information had just hit the road and is poisonous.

The entire medical field is functioning now on the principle of “ evidence-based medicine” . This is the beginning of the end of “ personal opinions”, poorly-executed studies, falsified results etc. I personally know people whose careers went down the drain because they published 2 pictures of the same histological slide turned 90 degrees away from each other and labeled as showing different phenomena.

Every submitted paper undergoes computer analysis to uncover plagiarism.

Every case of “ double publication” results in published retractions, indefinite ban by both involved journals as well as by a slew of others at the very least by the same publishers.

I see nothing wrong in implementing the same harsh policies in other fields.

Hope it answers your question. There is no “ all or nothing” cookbook, it all depends on the circumstances.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Ariel.

I believe that you & I are on the same page in respect of the standards for discussion on this forum. I can find nothing with which to disagree in your response. Very nicely stated.

However, I do feel that by moving into the area of publication you have moved away from the core function of this Forum. I do agree that prior to the publication of just about any serious work, and most especially serious work that is also original work, that work must undergo review at more than one level.

The reviewers should not mince words and should not hold back on anything. But I do not see this Forum as the place for such review. I believe that the people to carry out pre-publication review must be carefully chosen by the writer. Those people should be chosen upon the basis of their relevant knowledge & experience in one or more aspects that apply to the work to be published.

I do not see an online forum, especially a forum that is open for perusal by the entire world, as a place for such review.

You began this thread with some comments on "research", I think it was I who then diverged into one of the products of research, and addressed the desired or preferred nature of discussion, and you have answered my question well.

However, we are still left with a comment from your opening post, and for me, the questions raised by this comment are at the heart of this current discussion:-

"--- What all of us need to remember that there are rules of academic research, irrespective of the topic. Is our question hypothesis driven? How solid is the hypothesis? How do we plan to prove it? What kind of analysis are we going to employ? How stringent are we going to be with our conclusions? Will our conclusions add something important to the existing body of evidence? "

Can we understand your remarks here to apply to only the more serious contributions to our forum discussions, or should we use a structured, systematic approach to all of the seeking after information that we might undertake?

I feel that it might not be a real bad idea to leave the terms "academic" and "scientific" behind. Even amongst the academics & scientists who populate the communities of academia & science it would seem that there is not always a uniform understanding of the meaning of these terms, and amongst lay people, I would suggest that there is even less understanding.

So my question now is this:-

in your opinion, in this Forum, is it acceptable for random, unstructured ideas, observations & comments to form a basis for discussion, or should we try to always use a systematic, structured approach to enquiry, prior to presenting our ideas, observations & comments?

Can we understand that your comment that I have quoted above is to be applied to all data included in our posts, or should these concepts of system & structure only apply to those instances where a contributor to this Forum has posted information based upon what he or she considers to be serious research?

[Jim McDougall]

All this from a simple query asking for images of an Indian warrior wearing a khanjharli dagger, and an accompanying photo with a Sikh said to be with one.

Personally, while i do not have formal education training in procedures and methodology in systemic research...I just enjoy study, and learning from my own style of research. With this it is quite comfortable and rewarding and I enjoy the discussions being the same.........though my writing is typically a bit heavy and detailed. Most of that is simply because it is my way of compiling often notable time in research.

I dont think a private venue/forum needs to follow the strict regimens of academia to be useful and advance our collective knowledge on weapons in forms and history. We all have different perspectives in our interests in arms & armor.

While I admire the disciplines and achievements involved in academic pursuits and the structured scholarship, and all of those here who have accomplished notable credentials and experience.......I also enjoy just 'talking weapon study and history'.

In answering the question in the original thread, there were no protocols or structured methods followed...simple 'cerca trova' .
In the interpretation of this as I have understood....'seek and ye shall find'.

[Edster]

Thanks Jim, excellent counterpoint. I, too, enjoy the entertainment quality of good reasoned debate. However, as an example, I would also like to know the objective differences between a German made 19th C. munitions grade trade blade and those made in Kassala in the early & mid 20th C. Without makers marks most look the same to me.

Best regards,
Ed

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Edster

Thanks Jim, excellent counterpoint. I, too, enjoy the entertainment quality of good reasoned debate. However, as an example, I would also like to know the objective differences between a German made 19th C. munitions grade trade blade and those made in Kassala in the early & mid 20th C. Without makers marks most look the same to me.

Best regards,
Ed

Thanks Ed,
Actually when I began writing on these forums over 20 years ago, Mostly I just wanted to learn from other guys involved in studying the same weapons I was interested in. I have never cared especially for debate, but in sharing information and observations with examples and evidence.

I always appreciate when an example or observation is shared and when contrary views are shown, with explanations and details. Rather than debate these are discussions evaluating information at hand and constructively compiling material to advance the collective knowledge of all reading.

Great example on those Sudanese blades, I am always baffled at trying to evaluate them without markings as well. We often presume a blade must be European , but these guys in Kassala were pretty good.

[ariel]

Alan,
But of course! I thought I was pretty clear on it. 95% of all posts have nothing to do with real research: they are just a way to get straightforward information, to learn.
Re-search is " to seek anew", to start with uncertainty or doubt about current state of affairs in a particular area and subject the reality to additional tests ( experimental or purely mental, no difference) to either modify or confirm the existing state of knowledge.

Fora by and large are just social interactions to learn something known to others. How often do we see here really structured "research" topic, systematizing a particular field in a novel way? Once a year? The rest of the time we just learn from each other, and this is wonderful! Nothing wrong with it: that what all students do from the first grade to let's say masters degree. Only then they start addressing novel problems and re-searching. But those early years prepare at least some of them for a PhD level of thinking. I am pretty good in my field, but in my wildest dreams I cannot compare myself to specially educated David Alexander, Don LaRocca and Robert Elgood and even to such a "non-university" person as Robert Hales, who had learned so much by the sheer volume of personal experience combined with first class brain that he can teach us ( me, at least) more than a bunch of professors.

To recap: yes, "..... in this Forum, is it acceptable for random, unstructured ideas, observations & comments to form a basis for discussion". It prepares us to go one step further, to ask a really unexpected question, to develop a hypothesis.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Ariel,

I actually asked a couple of questions, I'm guessing you have answered "of course" to both of these questions. So I assume you mean that the relaxed approach is fine where no actual research has been done, but where research has been done, this research should have been done in a systematic manner? Is my understanding of your response correct?

Ariel, I do not want to introduce any new unrelated discussion to this thread, but I was under the impression that we were talking about research, not re-search.

The word "research" comes from Old French, and the "re" in this case does not mean "again" it indicates the use of a great degree of force, the root is probably "cercher". This is as I remember, I'm not good on French, and I only recall little interesting bits & pieces here and there. I guess "cercher", or maybe "cerchier" might have come from the Latin --- "re" was originally used with words from the Latin. But in any case, when the intensifier "re" is added to "cercher" we have a word that means to seek for something with extreme dedication, & thus "research". I'm running on 60 odd year old memories here, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

Is "re-search" in fact an English word, or English usage? I don't think I've ever come across it.

Anyway, no matter about words, I think that in broad terms you & I have a similar take on the nature of this Forum.

[Edster]

I'm a perennial lurker on this Forum and read most all the posts. Yogi Berra once said "You can observe a lot just by watching". This is what I have observed.

In my view we're are mostly asking Cultural Heritage Research questions related to metal objects (weapons): What is it? How, Where, When and sometimes Why was it made. As previously stated we usually rely of soft methods based on personal observations and experience to offer reasoned opinions.

How do we really tell the difference between historical native blades and European or Asian imports? Where did native iron or copper actually come from? Composition of twist core, laminated or wootz blades? Hardness results from native vs factory heat treating? (Are testing files good enough?) Is that coin silver or from sterling? (Chemical test is available for silver.)

Unfortunately, we lack hard data developed via scientific investigation. That's not really our fault because we don't have access to expensive scientific equipment usually only available to industrial facilities, museums and research universities. Non-destructive tests are available of only we had access to them. Fortunately, portable X-Ray Fluorescence testers and even Neutron Imaging techniques are becoming available to test for metal alloy compositions.

How do we gain access to these equipment so a database can be developed? I tried to get a material science prof. to help analyse my Kaskara blades. He didn't respond. Likely, I didn't sell the idea properly. Maybe we can develop cultural heritage research projects and pitch them to nearby universities or museums; make it interesting and publishable to them. Maybe do a GoFundMe account to do real analysis?

Anyway, I like to see we forum members work toward more reproducible data to inform our collective judgements.

Best regards,
Ed