Draft:Original research/Theory of original research

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Supernova SN 1987A is one of the brightest stellar explosions since the invention of the telescope more than 400 years ago.[1] Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA.

The theory of original research is focused on what is, or what it takes for an effort to be, original research. The phrase "theory of original research" has no citations on Google scholar. Even on the full web, there are only eleven cites of which eight are correctly phrased and one of these directs to this resource.

Notations

[edit | edit source]

Notation: let the symbol OR designate or stand for original research.

Control groups

[edit | edit source]

A control group for a theory of original research may include theoretical definitions for the words theory, original, and research. It may also include a theoretical definition of original research. Ultimately, it should include a definition of original research theory, or theory of original research.

Originals

[edit | edit source]
Main articles: Original research/Original and Originals

Def. an "object or other creation (e.g. narrative work) from which all later copies and variations are derived"[2] is called an original.

As an adjective,

Def.

  1. of or relating "to the origin or beginning; preceding all others"[2],
  2. first "in a series or copies/versions",[2]
  3. newly "created",[2]
  4. fresh, "different",[2]
  5. pioneering,[2] or
  6. having "as its origin"[2]

is called original.

Original usually means first in time. But, what about synonymy? Suppose someone creates a synonymy for an original sentence. Is this truly a synonym or is it original research? Usually, the idea of putting the sentence into your own words indicates synonymy. And, the proof is left to the reader. Should it be?

A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes.[3][4] I cannot confirm that this definition is in the references indicated.

Consider the following sentence from the above Wikipedia article: "A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes."[5]

In the history of the above article, there is "Definitions should avoid being what C.L. Stevenson calls 'persuasive'. A persuasive definition is one which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an altered use, perhaps as an argument for some view, for example that some system of government is democratic. Stevenson also notes that some definitions are 'legal' or 'coercive', whose object is to create or alter rights, duties or crimes."[6]

While I do not have ready access to Stevenson's publication, which synonymy is the exact synonymy and are any relative synonymy. "In his Ethics and Language, Stevenson defines the term 'persuasive definition' as follows: "In any 'persuasive definition' the term defined is a familiar one, whose meaning is both descriptive and strongly emotive. The purport of the definition is to alter the descriptive meaning of the term, usually by giving it greater precision within the boundary of its customary vagueness; but the definition does not make any substantial change in the term's emotive meaning. And the definition is used, consciously or unconsciously, in an effort to secure, by this interplay between emotive and descriptive meaning, a redirection of people's attitudes" (Stevenson, 1944)"[7]

If these are not all exact, perhaps the authors between Stevenson and the present have varied slightly from exact synonymy. Relative synonymy may be a form of original research.

Researches

[edit | edit source]
Main article: Research

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."[8]

Theories of research

[edit | edit source]

Def. diligent "inquiry or examination to seek or revise facts, principles, theories, applications, etc.; laborious or continued search after truth"[9] is called research.

For the theory of original research, the proof of concept is that there is a theory of original research.

Def. "new research, as opposed to review or synthesis of earlier research"[10] is called original research.

Def. the "production of brand-new ideas via hypothesis, experimentation, and/or deduction, as opposed to mere review or resynthesis of earlier knowledge in the field"[11] may be called original research.

Organizations

[edit | edit source]

Def. an "organization (typically a non-profit think tank) that conducts original research on issues, makes governmental policy recommendations based on its findings, and disseminates its work to the appropriate audiences"[12] is called a policy institute.

Seminars

[edit | edit source]

Def. a "class held for advanced studies in which students meet regularly to discuss original research, under the guidance of a professor"[13] is called a seminar.

Inquiries

[edit | edit source]
Main articles: Original research/Inquiries and Inquiries

Def.

  1. "a seeking of information by asking questions"[14] or
  2. search "for truth, information, or knowledge; examination of facts or principles"[14]

is called inquiry.

Usage notes

"According to Fowler's Modern English Usage (1926), inquiry should be used in relation to a formal inquest, and enquiry to the act of questioning. Many (though not all) British writers maintain this distinction; the Oxford English Dictionary, in its entry not updated since 1900, lists inquiry and enquiry as equal alternatives, in that order. Some British dictionaries, such as Chambers 21st Century Dictionary [1], present the two spellings as interchangeable variants in the general sense, but prefer inquiry for the "formal inquest" sense. In Australian English, inquiry represents a formal inquest (such as a government investigation) while enquiry is used in the act of questioning (eg: the customer enquired about the status of his loan application). Both spellings are current in Canadian English, where enquiry is often associated with scholarly or intellectual research. (See Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, p. 282.)

American English usually uses inquiry."[14]

Searches

[edit | edit source]
Main articles: Original research/Searches and Searches

Forms

[edit | edit source]
Main articles: Charges/Forms and Forms

Original research can take a number of forms, depending on the discipline it pertains to. In experimental work, it typically involves direct or indirect observation of the researched subject, e.g., in the laboratory or in the field, documents the methodology, results, and conclusions of an experiment or set of experiments, or offers a novel interpretation of previous results. In analytical work, there are typically some new (for example) mathematical results produced, or a new way of approaching an existing problem. In some subjects which do not typically carry out experimentation or analysis of this kind, the originality is in the particular way existing understanding is changed or re-interpreted based on the outcome of the work of the researcher.[15]

Primary sources

[edit | edit source]
Main articles: Experimentation/Primary sources and Primary sources

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used. Any exceptional claim may be original research.

Attributions

[edit | edit source]
Main articles: Law/Attributions and Attributioms

To demonstrate that you are adding OR, you must be unable to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.

All material added to articles that is not original research or original synthesis must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[16] "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."[8]

Syntheses

[edit | edit source]
Main articles: Original research/Synthesis and Synthesis

Def. "[t]he formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things"[17] is called synthesis.

Combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is considered synthesis (a variety of original research). If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, then joining A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources is synthesis.

Def. new synthesis, as opposed to review or synthesis of earlier research, that is not mentioned by earlier research or synthesis and is unciteable to earlier research or synthesis is called original synthesis.

Test of terms

[edit | edit source]
Main articles: Experiments/Tests and Experimental tests

Several different tests or learning packets (lessons) may be generated from the original research project focused on the term dominant group. Currently under development in resource space is Dominant group/Metagenome/Term test. The term "dominant group" is an interesting example and possible test for original research vs. ordinary usage. It has no ordinary usage dictionary definition. But, there are several technical, scientific, or theoretical definitions in scholarly use. Curiously, if an author uses the term in a sentence, for example:

The course of evolution has been changed several times by mass extinctions that wiped out previously dominant groups and allowed others to rise from obscurity to become major components of ecosystems.

The author may be speculating or engaging in original research. A subsequent editor removed this sentence containing dominant group. See the discussion for Dominant group/Metagenome/Term test, Discuss.

This example is close to the cited statements in dominant group/paleontology. But, there is a distinct difference: "The course of evolution has been changed several times" is not the same meaning as the authors indicate in "dominant group/paleontology".

Additional aids in determining what each student should or could do can be found in these wikiversity articles:

  1. Dominant group/Classes of meaning
  2. Dominant group/Test of term.

Unattributed but attributable

[edit | edit source]

"That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."[8]

Paris appears to have been the official capital of France from May 28, 1871, until the present.

Wikipedia

[edit | edit source]

"The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[16] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."[8]

Hypotheses

[edit | edit source]
Main article: Hypotheses
  1. Original research is research no hominins have actually performed before.

See also

[edit | edit source]

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. ↑ Hubble Revisits an Old Friend, In: Picture of the Week. ESA/Hubble. http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/potw1142a/. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 original. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. October 12, 2013. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/original. Retrieved 2013-10-19. 
  3. ↑ Nicholas Bunnin, Yu Jiyuan (2004). Persuasive definition, In: The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781405106795. http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g978140510679517_ss1-72. Retrieved 2011-04-10. 
  4. ↑ Philosophy Pages. http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p2.htm. Retrieved 2011-04-10. 
  5. ↑ AxelBoldt (January 29, 2007). Persuasive definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/Persuasive_definition. Retrieved 2011-10-13. 
  6. ↑ Renamed user 4 (October 15, 2006). Definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/Definition. Retrieved 2011-10-13. 
  7. ↑ Tom Claes (2003). David Seth Preston. ed. Definitions of 'the university' as Arguments in the Evaluative Discussion on 'the university', In: The Idea of Education. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.. pp. 121-36. ISBN 90-420-1146-7. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=i6AQGKgXBYYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA121&ots=YSE1vTxQbM&sig=_4KMWuLF9lfAxZZbPg4N4V1sfrY#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved 2011-10-13. 
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Wikipedia:No original research, In: Wikipedia. October 5, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. Retrieved 2011-10-05. 
  9. ↑ research. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 15 July 2014. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/research. Retrieved 2014-07-17. 
  10. ↑ Pathoschild (19 November 2006). original research. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/original_research. Retrieved 2012-08-02. 
  11. ↑ Scs (10 August 2006). original research. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/original_research. Retrieved 2012-08-02. 
  12. ↑ TheProject~enwiktionary (19 May 2006). "policy institute". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2 July 2019. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  13. ↑ BD2412 (7 July 2005). "seminar". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2 July 2019. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Poccil (20 October 2004). inquiry. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inquiry. Retrieved 2016-05-25. 
  15. ↑ Michael Singh and Bingyi Li (October 6, 2009). Early career researcher originality: Engaging Richard Florida’s international competition for creative workers. Centre for Educational Research, University of Western Sydney. pp. 24. http://www.aare.edu.au/09pap/li091380.pdf. 
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
  17. ↑ synthesis. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 7 July 2014. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/synthesis. Retrieved 2014-07-17. 
[edit | edit source]

{{Reasoning resources}}{{Terminology resources}}

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Original_research/Theory_of_original_research&oldid=2146825"