What counts as research?
Dec. 3rd, 2021 08:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnckirkI've seen a post being circulated on social media, talking about what counts as research:
On the face of it, this is correct. When I was thinking about doing a PhD, I read a book about what makes a good research project; one concept that stuck with me is that there should be no such thing as a bad result. I.e. if you design your experiment correctly, whatever result you get will give you new information. (That's a principle which I try to apply when I'm troubleshooting IT problems.)
However, in the context of COVID etc., I think it just comes across as pedantic nitpicking, which misses the main point. As an analogy, here's an imaginary conversation on a different topic:
In a situation like this, "self-study" would be a better term than "research", but I think it's still a legitimate activity, and YouTube can be a good source of information. (E.g. when I was decorating, I watched videos to learn how to take my radiators off the wall.)
I think it's valid to question whether a source is reliable (e.g. Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend). It's also valid not to bother engaging at all, on the basis that anyone who's anti-vax at this point clearly hasn't been paying attention. But I don't think anyone is going to change their views just because you have a different definition of "research".
On a side note, there's some irony when it comes to evaluating primary sources. The text above is floating around in the form of a screenshot, e.g. in this Facebook post by "Women's Rights News" from August 2021. The screenshot comes from a post by Saya Olivia Hayasha in April 2020.
I can understand why people share screenshots when they move between platforms, particularly since the original post would exceed Twitter's 280 character limit. However, if you're on the original platform, why not link directly to the source? That would improve accessibility (e.g. for blind people using screen readers), which is why I put the text above rather than an image. It's also worth noting that the original post mentions "Linda Gamble Spadaro" at the bottom, which was trimmed out in the screenshot. However, there's no link to where Spadaro wrote it, and I can't find the original. Someone has suggested that this was actually posted by someone else who then tagged her at the bottom, but I don't know whether that's true.
It's worth noting that Spadaro posted this about 2 weeks after Hayasha's post. Excerpt:
So, it's interesting that she's being credited for a message which is used to discredit anti-vaxxers. It's also interesting that I've made more of an effort with source evaluation than lots of the people who shared the screenshot!
Please stop saying you "researched it."
You didn't research anything and it's highly probable that you don't even know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies.
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn't fucking research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little to no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.
On the face of it, this is correct. When I was thinking about doing a PhD, I read a book about what makes a good research project; one concept that stuck with me is that there should be no such thing as a bad result. I.e. if you design your experiment correctly, whatever result you get will give you new information. (That's a principle which I try to apply when I'm troubleshooting IT problems.)
However, in the context of COVID etc., I think it just comes across as pedantic nitpicking, which misses the main point. As an analogy, here's an imaginary conversation on a different topic:
Alice: "I can't believe there are so many frivolous lawsuits nowadays. Like that woman who sued McDonalds just because her coffee was hot, it's ridiculous!"
Carol: "Actually, I did some research into that. It turns out that the coffee was hot enough to give full thickness (third degree) burns and she was in hospital for 8 days."
Alice: "Hah, that's not research! It's not even a literature review. So, your argument is invalid. Good day."
Carol: "But..."
Alice: "I said good day!"
In a situation like this, "self-study" would be a better term than "research", but I think it's still a legitimate activity, and YouTube can be a good source of information. (E.g. when I was decorating, I watched videos to learn how to take my radiators off the wall.)
I think it's valid to question whether a source is reliable (e.g. Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend). It's also valid not to bother engaging at all, on the basis that anyone who's anti-vax at this point clearly hasn't been paying attention. But I don't think anyone is going to change their views just because you have a different definition of "research".
On a side note, there's some irony when it comes to evaluating primary sources. The text above is floating around in the form of a screenshot, e.g. in this Facebook post by "Women's Rights News" from August 2021. The screenshot comes from a post by Saya Olivia Hayasha in April 2020.
I can understand why people share screenshots when they move between platforms, particularly since the original post would exceed Twitter's 280 character limit. However, if you're on the original platform, why not link directly to the source? That would improve accessibility (e.g. for blind people using screen readers), which is why I put the text above rather than an image. It's also worth noting that the original post mentions "Linda Gamble Spadaro" at the bottom, which was trimmed out in the screenshot. However, there's no link to where Spadaro wrote it, and I can't find the original. Someone has suggested that this was actually posted by someone else who then tagged her at the bottom, but I don't know whether that's true.
It's worth noting that Spadaro posted this about 2 weeks after Hayasha's post. Excerpt:
"I do not consent!
I do not consent to the mass manipulation of the public with faulty science and pharma propaganda.
I do not consent to quarantine and vaccines as the only way out of this manufactured pandemic."
So, it's interesting that she's being credited for a message which is used to discredit anti-vaxxers. It's also interesting that I've made more of an effort with source evaluation than lots of the people who shared the screenshot!
