Academic research: musings

[ariel]

Completely agree.
There are areas where research is straightforward and fully dependable on experimentally- provable data : " let's remove X and see what happens"
Study of weapons cannot employ experiments: it is strictly observational. It is much more tentative and more difficult to conduct.

But the principles of the two are by and large the same: noticing or suspecting something unusual or different, asking is it interesting and/or important, if not,- forgetting it, if yes - asking a question/hypothesis (why? where? when?), collecting material and published information, discussing the results without bias and providing an answer.

Without absorbing and rigorously employing general principles of research or, worse of, without dedicated training in these basic principles, book markets are getting flooded by amateurish publications that are full of errors, i.e. at the best colorful coffee table volumes, and at the worst - sources of misleading information for generations.
The " half-life of information" is measured in years. It is getting shorter, but still long enough to impress tyros and influence even professionals. Regretfully, in all our different areas of interest ( and, occasionally, competence, Alan Maisey and Albert van Zonneveld being an example in Indonesian, a strong group in Filipino, Elgood in Indian, Rivkin in Caucasian etc.), we all know such publications.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[kronckew]

Y'all touched on photos being 'staged'. Photographers were not above moving bodies and equipment around to suit the tale they wanted to tell their viewers. Portrait Photographers were known to move or add weapons from their own stock of weapons. Person wears a knife behind his back? move it to the front for the photo. Didn't bring your sword? Here' use mine. That baldric doesn't have the right look? here, let me adjust it for you so we can see it better. Here, put this turnban on, makes you look exotic. rembrant had a lrge sharp pointy thing collection, and added bits from it to his portrait where he though they would look good, not where the portrayed actually had them, or even not caring if they didn't own or use one like that.


Photos show you what the photographers wanted you to see. They were not anthropological records, but for entertaining the readers back home, and the more pizazz and flamboyancy, the easier it was to make money from them.Useful, but of varying degrees of accuracy. As in all things, Caveat Emptor.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel opened his "musings" comments with a statement:-

"All scientific investigations are hypothesis driven."

The title of this thread that we are contributing to is:-

"Academic research: musings"

From these two ideas I have assumed that Ariel was thinking in a scientific and/or academic way when he wrote his comments.

Ariel's opening comments focused rather strongly on photographic data and I believe the idea or ideas behind his comments were directed at a couple of questions, that I understand to be:-

a) just how reliable are photographs of people and things from foreign places and past times in demonstrating anything of value to an understanding of those people and things that existed in those foreign places and past times?

b) even if some reliability of the photographic information can be demonstrated, is that information important?

Ariel, if my understanding of that which you have written is incorrect I would appreciate your correction. It is important to understand how a message is to be understood before a relevant response can be written.

But whether or not I do clearly understand your message, I feel inclined to write a response in any case.

Ariel's comment that "All scientific investigations are hypothesis driven" is demonstrably true.

But before the hypothesis can exist there must be a question, the hypothesis itself is not a question, although it may generate questions, a hypothesis is an assumption, or a proposition, or an educated guess that forms the basis for investigation by way of experiment, or observation, or other means with the objective to determine the truth or untruth of the assumption proposed by the hypothesis.

It is this phase of testing and investigation that is driven by the hypothesis, and this testing and investigation is that which may be termed "academic research". Prior to the construction of the hypothesis, no actual "research", as the word is understood in a scientific/academic context, was performed.

Ariel has said just this in his statement quoted above.

The addition of the adjective "academic" imparts a defined meaning to the word "research". Academic research does not necessarily imply that this "academic" research is in fact "scientific" research. Academic research implies the use of a system to investigate a defined matter with the objective of dealing with that matter, if the system used to perform the investigation is the Scientific Method, then that academic research also becomes Scientific Research.

The testing of a hypothesis might result in that hypothesis being able to be supported by things that are known, or assumed, to be fact. If this should occur, then the hypothesis has generated a principle that explains something, and that principle then can be regarded as a theory. A theory must be able to be defended, a hypothesis does not need to be defended, its reason for being is that the idea it encapsulates is something that can be questioned, investigated, and tested.

In my understanding, Ariel has attempted to gently demonstrate that all "research" is not "scientific/academic research", and in any case the results that might be produced even from "scientific/academic research" are not necessarily important.

In other words, all "research" is not equal, nor for that matter is it sufficiently important to be necessary.

However, this Forum does not present itself as an academic nor as a scientific Forum. My own understanding of the character of this Forum is that it is a place for discussion. That discussion might be based upon "research" as research is understood in general or colloquial terms. The discussion that ensues from this non-scientific research could perhaps generate a question that leads to the construction of a hypothesis, which in turn might eventually produce a principle and that principle could well become a theory.

As I have previously stated, I am not an academic, nor am I a scientist. My own profession is principally concerned with analysis and the identification of risk. In exercise of this capacity I have been employed by academics, scientists, and others to identify risk and flaws in work that they have done, work that they are now doing, and work which they wish to undertake in the future. Part of the system upon which practice of my profession is based is the gathering of information, this is the initial phase of any investigation or analysis. If I consider this Forum and the discussions that take place here, I come to the opinion that it is firmly fixed into the information gathering phase of any further investigation into the topics discussed. Those discussions can sometimes become a foundation stone in an investigation.

As a part of information gathering, I would suggest that the comments posted to discussions in this Forum do not need to be either scientific or academic in nature.

As to how important something might be, well, to determine that we probably need to place the concept of "importance" into its related context:- things that are important to a person, or to a field of knowledge, could well be totally unimportant to another person, or field of knowledge.

It is absolutely certain that academic research and the related scientific method of investigation have a place in the world at large, but I wonder how much of a place either might have in a Forum that to me, appears to be dedicated to ongoing, open discussion.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

...However, this Forum does not present itself as an academic nor as a scientific Forum. My own understanding of the character of this Forum is that it is a place for discussion. That discussion might be based upon "research" as research is understood in general or colloquial terms...
... As a part of information gathering, I would suggest that the comments posted to discussions in this Forum do not need to be either scientific or academic in nature...
... As to how important something might be, well, to determine that we probably need to place the concept of "importance" into its related context:- things that are important to a person, or to a field of knowledge, could well be totally unimportant to another person, or field of knowledge...
... It is absolutely certain that academic research and the related scientific method of investigation have a place in the world at large, but I wonder how much of a place either might have in a Forum that to me, appears to be dedicated to ongoing, open discussion...

What a clear and truthful perspective; obviously subscribable.

[ariel]

Alan and Fernando,
Perhaps I did not myself clear enough.
I presented general “ academic “ rules of scientific research. And by “academic”
I did not mean that the research should be conducted within the ivory towers or by holders of PhD degrees.
Anybody could attempt to conduct research work. This can only be encouraged. But to be not only printable but also valid and respectable, the work should be conducted according to the general rules.

Thus, there are different levels of involvement in “research”. On the internet Fora, including the present one, most of communications are requests for help to demonstration of rare and potentially revealing examples and series of related examples demonstrating some similarities or time changes. The latter is as close to the “ hardcore” research as possible and should do its best to follow the “rules” ( sometimes it may be difficult to impossible, and the rest of participants should understand and accept it),

The next level is a “research article”. This is published in a journal or proceeding of a conference. Here adherence to the “ rules” is mandatory and external peer review is routine. Still, this may be a bit freewheeling” and can restrict its conclusions to “ offering a hypothesis” and opening it to critique and retesting.

The ultimate level is a full book. This is a summary of all we know for now about a particular field. It still can be offering hypotheses, but those can be presented in a non- biased and complete set of pros-and -cons. It requires as close adherence to the “rules” as possible, assumes critical analysis of the available data, use of statistics ( if possible) and of course absolute adherence to truthful information, without omissions of contradictory opinions and facts.
Description of examples should be complete, with references to other similar objects, analysis of inscriptions and decorations to tie them to other similar properly dated and attributed examples.

This is as concise as possible and we can expand our conditions . Can a book contain errors? Regretfully, no book will be free of them: the half-life of facts is a reality. But it should be as ideal as possible on the day it goes to print.

I know of several books from different authors and countries that qualify as “The Book” only by the number of pages and a hard cover. Some partially compensate by showing good images ( the so-called “ coffee-table” volumes) , many load as many identical examples without any analysis, believing that quantity is going to pad up quality. Some books are results of personal vanity of the author, intended of showing his/her collection before putting it for sale. By the same token, I know several catalogues of personal collections that unquestionably qualify as real academic works ( Moser, Buttin, Nordlunde, Hales, Pinchot’s catalogue of Wagner’s collection et cet.). Some are the worst : pure personal vanity ( “ I am not just a reader, I am a writer”) is the only driving force ( hint: jambiyas, but not by Gracie).

So, overall, there is a full spectrum of at least some contributions to real research: from asking a question the answer to which clarifies the issue and freewheeling exchange of opinions to full books addressing a wide swath of issues ( Rivkin and Isaac’s ” The study of the Eastern sword») as well as focussed on a particular variety ( Khorasani’s “Arms and Armor from Iran”»).

All are valuable to different degrees, but each next level requires stricter and stricter adherence to the appropriate set of the “Rules”.

Disclaimer: all names and titles are just the first ones to jump into mind. One can ask me about my particular opinion on other books, but I shall defer to the unified opinion of the Moderators.
No examples of European or Far( ther) Eastern topics were mentioned simply because I know nothing about them.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your further comments Ariel.

In my post #17 I asked this:-

"Ariel, if my understanding of that which you have written is incorrect I would appreciate your correction. It is important to understand how a message is to be understood before a relevant response can be written."

Since you have not addressed the matter of my understanding, I can only assume that you are in agreement with my understanding of your post #1.

In your post #19 you have expanded upon your ideas, but I do find that this new direction you have chosen does confuse me a little. I am now uncertain of exactly what type of research you are talking about, in your first post, you were quite specific in that your comments were focused on two separate, but related systems:-

a) academic research
b) scientific investigation

Now you have introduced the concept of "generality", and you mention "rules" several times. But then you move away from the two systems with which you opened discussion and you have diverged into another major system, the system of publishing the results of research. Academic Research need not be presented in any way, but the results of Scientific Research as a component part of the Scientific Method should be presented in one way or another.

I took your "musings" to be a fairly serious commentary on the research that often comes under discussion in this Forum, you wrote of the "rules of academic research", you asked if "our question is hypothesis driven", you queried the quality of the conclusions that had been reached. You drew parallels with your own professional work.

All of this is good, solid stuff. I can relate very easily to this, it is precisely the same sort of thinking that applies in my own profession, and exactly what governs the type work that I have done for most of my life. This work is audit, specifically operational audit, and using a systems based approach.

Before going into private consultancy I worked for a state instrumentality that was the owner/operator of a testing laboratory that was supposedly the largest and most highly regarded in the Southern Hemisphere, it might have been, it might not have been, I never researched the question. However, I was responsible for the audit of that testing laboratory, and from that involvement I also did private reviews of papers & articles produced by some of the people who worked there, written work produced by cadets who were working towards their first degree through to senior people who were engaged in post graduate studies.

So, coming from this background I read your initial post, and my impression was that you would have liked to see a slightly more disciplined approach to the research that is behind a lot of the discussion in this forum. My immediate thought was that yes, I can relate to that, let's not waste time on empty pipe dreams, let's focus a bit and produce some serious ideas.

But then I paused, and I considered the nature of this forum, and I concluded my post #17 by leaving the question open:- do we go the way of systematic research, or do we just wander around discussing generalities? Something to be said for both approaches, but I feel that in this forum perhaps a softer, more social approach might be the way to go. Polite discussion between gentlemen --- and ladies too, if we have any present, rather than incisive reasoning backed by dedicated systematic research.

Now Ariel, it seems to me that you moved somewhat from favouring the academic, scientific, hypothesis driven approach, and have moved towards a more "general" approach to research? Am I correct ?

In any case, we are still talking about "rules":- the "general academic rules of scientific research". But Ariel, you have not revealed those "rules " to us.

Please forgive me, I do not believe we are discussing the value or quality of any published works, publication of any research is a separate system to the research itself. The system of research might support the record of that research, but the publication of the record is a separate system. So, excluding all references to publishing of the results of research, and looking at only the concept of research itself, I believe that there are several terms that we need to clearly understand before this discussion can proceed.

The key words & ideas in your comments Ariel, appear to be:-

a) research, this word is from the word "search" to look for something, we all carry out research constantly, we want to buy a new car, so we research brands, models, prices; we want to buy groceries, so we research various stores for range and prices. This is general research, just looking for the best deal, or the most suitable solution.

b) academic, when we couple "research" with "academic" we become a little more specific, by definition, "Academic Research" is no longer just "research" it is a particular kind of research, and it is governed by rules, in broad terms the applicable rules are that Academic Research must employ a systematic approach and have an objective.

c) scientific, when we couple "research" with "scientific" we become even more specific, "Scientific Research" is a sub-system of the "Scientific Method". I have encountered a number of definitions of the component sub-systems of the system known as "the Scientific Method", the progression of this method of investigation looks something like this:-

question> research> hypothesis> test> observation> analysis> conclusion> presentation of findings

now, strangely enough this is a precise parallel with the methodology of Systems Based Audit, something that I have now been using for around forty years.
So, Scientific Research shares its nature with Academic Research, both are based upon a systematic approach, both have an objective, but Scientific Research is a part of the Scientific Method, which has as its ultimate objective the presentation of findings from that research, the findings from Academic Research might never be presented in any form.

d) rules, that is, the rules which govern both Academic Research and Scientific Research, well, the actual rules are the same:- the research must be carried out in a systematic way and that research must have an objective. It is a given that according to the field in which the research is being done, the elements of the system used and of the objective will vary.

The take-away from this is that once we introduce the concepts of "academic" and "scientific" the idea of "general" can no longer apply:- general research is what we all do constantly, Academic Research and Scientific Research both a have the requisites of system and objective.

We can research things in more or less general way, or we can research things in a structured, systematic way.

So Ariel, my question now is this:- as a standard for this forum, do you favour the more or less general form of research that is a pretty comfortable foundation for social discussion, or do you favour the hard edged systematic approach that can generate learned discussion and possible conflict?

Personally, I'd rather go with the soft approach.