Fall 2015 1

PANNING FOR GOLDTHINKING ABOUT

ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Peter Paolucci, Ph.D.

Fall 2015 2

Orientation

This discussion is about these ideas

1. Searching for valuable and reliable sources (gold) means sifting through lots of unreliable and biased information (sand).

2. Corollary to #1: recognize reliable information (gold) when you see it: don’t be duped (fool’s gold) by useless or bad resources

3. Knowing where to look.4. Know what to look for.5. Why you need to be patient and allow lots of time

Fall 2015 3

4 Parts to thinking like and Academic Researcher

i. Overview of core principles

ii. Discovering sources (panning for gold)

iii. Evaluating sources

iv.Scrutinizing evidence / working with your research

Fall 2015 4

I: Overview of Core Principles

Fall 2015 5

IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTIMATE …

1. Time & energy required

2. Power of serendipity

Consequently, you need

2 key interrelated skills:

risk assessment and time management

Fall 2015 6

Risk Assessment

Imagine (and list) what could go worgn with your work plan. Be flexible

1. Physical or mental fatigue2. Family or personal emergency (minor or major)3. Surprise assignment in another course4. Bad weather = longer commute5. Emergency at work6. Emergency at home or a friend in need

Fall 2015 7

Time Management

Plan for the unexpected by

1.Setting your own due date; earlierearlier than the assignment due date

2.Build redundancy/duplication into your study plan (schedule it twice or

more) which gives you flexibility

Fall 2015 8

PREDICT !

Try to speculate as specifically as you can about what you could find or are likely to find

Even if wrong, it’s better to approach research with articulated expectations (you can always correct errors as you move forward)

It’s only a hypothesis to get started !!It’s only a hypothesis to get started !!

Fall 2015 9

GETTING ANSWERS

The “answers” are NOT in the library or on the Internet …

They are already in your head !

TIPS WORTH CONSIDERING

1. Research more than you need

2. Explore more than is necessary

3. Bring home (and archive) hard & soft copies of key items you encounter: record citations of less important items

4. Record all meta information (author, title, journal, URL, date, call #, page #, editor, which library), where you were, the date, etc..

Fall 2015 10

TIPS WORTH CONSIDERING

5. Think dialectically

6. Challenge everything

5. Show a variety of sources, opinions and viewpoints, especially conflicting and hostile viewpoints

6. Show current sources AND knowledge older precedents (which are not always wrong or outdated)

Fall 2015 11

Fall 2015 12

TIPS WORTH CONSIDERING

Begin NOT by narrowing down your ideas,

but by

opening up possibilities thereby generating more informed choices

Fall 2015 13

II: FINDING (LEGITIMATE) SOURCES

Fall 2015 14

2 TYPES OF SOURCES

POPULAR or ACADEMIC

Fall 2015 15

MATCHING 2 TYPES OF LIBRARIES

Popular Academic or Peer ReviewedPopular Academic or Peer Reviewed

Fall 2015 16

ACADEMIC PUBLISHING

Books (aka monographs) published by scholarly published houses or university presses

or

Articles (aka journals) published monthly or quarterly, but sometimes annually or after a conference (so-called "proceedings"). In print or online, or both. University pays for hard copy and/or online subscriptions to these.

““Legitimate” items are said to be “refereed,” that Legitimate” items are said to be “refereed,” that is, sent to several third party experts for scrutiny is, sent to several third party experts for scrutiny and returned with ...and returned with ...

i.i. rejectedrejectedii.ii. publish with minor revisions, publish with minor revisions, iii.iii. publish with major revisions publish with major revisions iv.iv. publish as is (no changes)publish as is (no changes)

About the Peer Review Processhttp://www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/pubreviews.html

Fall 2015 17

THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Fall 2015 18

ACADEMIC RESEARCH & WRITING

The following qualities are what to look for in good research.

The very same qualities are also what you should be striving for in your own academic writing.

Pay attention to how it’s done so you can incorporate academic features into your own academic writing.

Fall 2015 19

III: Evaluating Sources

Fall 2015 20

ACADEMIC WRITING HAS …

1. Thoroughness i. Cover different (and especially) hostile points of view. ii. Cover current and older items tooiii. If possible, search in different languages

2. Accuracy & Meticulousnessi. Double check accuracy and context of quotes as well

as page numbers and bibliography informationii. Include all information even if it seems irrelevant at

the time when you are writing it down

Fall 2015 21

ACADEMIC WRITING HAS …

3. Balance & fairnessi. No “straw man” arguments

4. Clarity in complexityi. Retain paradoxes, dilemmas and

inconsistencies. Don’t oversimplify

Fall 2015 22

ACADEMIC WRITING HAS …

3. Author’s personal credentials

4. Connection to / affiliation with a recognized academic institution

Fall 2015 23

WARNING SIGNS

1. No named/cited author2. No institutional affiliation3. No credentials or relevant credentials4. No Works Cited/Works Consulted5. One-sided argument6. Unsubstantiated claims7. Poor, incomplete, or missing evidence8. No evidence of peer review

See http://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/howdoi/scholarly.html

Fall 2015 24

IV: Scrutinizizng Evidence

Fall 2015 25

KINDS OF EVIDENCE

Statistical Empirical

Expertise Scientific

Testimonial Anecdotal

Analogical Precedent

– http://www.writingsimplified.com/2009/10/4-types-of-evidence.html– http://depts.washington.edu/methods/evidencetypes.html– Adapted from Seech, Z. (1993). Writing philosophy papers. Belmont, Calif.:

Wadsworth Pub. Co.

Fall 2015 26

KINDS OF EVIDENCE (2)

Expertise

Peer Reviewed Sources

Government Studies

Institutional research

Fall 2015 27

FALLACIES

i. Confusing / conflating causality with correlation and/or accident

ii. anecdotal

iii. precedent

iv. appeal to probabilty

v. ad hominem

vi. begging the question (most misunderstood)

vii. straw man

Fall 2015 28

FALLACIES: 3 KINDS OF SYLLOGISM

i. DISJUNCTIVE:i. Major premise: Either the meeting is at school or at home.ii. Minor premise: The meeting is not at home.iii. Conclusion: Therefore the meeting is at school.

ii. CATEGORICALi. Major premise: All men are mortal.ii. Minor premise: Socrates is a man.iii. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

iii. CONDITIONALi. Major premise: If Johnny is eating sweets every day, he is placing himself at risk for

diabetes.ii. Minor premise: Johnny does not eat sweats everydayiii. Conclusion: Therefore Johnny is not placing himself at risk for diabetes

Fall 2015 29

FALLACIES: BEGGING THE QUESTION

i. Regularly misunderstood and used incorrectly to me "invites the question"

ii. Circular reasoning such as:

Bill: "God must exist."

Jill: "How do you know."

Bill: "Because the Bible says so."

Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"

Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Fall 2015 30

PERSUASION & ANCIENT RHETORIC

1. Logos or appeals to reasoni. inductive / inductive

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/

2. Pathos or appeals emotioni. Honour

ii. Patriotism

iii. empathy

3. Ethos or appeals to ethics/moralilty1. integrity or credibility of speaker

2. establish a rapport with your udience

3. rightness of your argument

Fall 2015 31

THE SOKOL AFFAIR Alan Sokol Published a peer-reviewed article "liberally salted with nonsense"

– Only one article by one journal BUT– Made critical world wonder about the whole process– Where does truth live?– What is the relationship between truth and legitimacy?

Sokal's Hoax http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/weinberg.html

Poor Medical Research (1/7)http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/12/13/06.html

Fall 2015 32

Librarians vs Internet Search Engines

Fall 2015 33

LIBRARY SCIENCE

Is all about standardization of information (data ad so-called metadata or information about information

• ISBN / ISSN numbers• Library of Congress see http://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/

• Standard “subjects”

Fall 2015 34

Fall 2015 35

INTERNET - LIBRARY: DIFFERENCES

Librarians standardize everything, incl. booleans (and, or, adj, not)

but

Internet search engines standardize little (they compete by offering different alternatives)

Fall 2015 36

INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES

• 3 Kinds:– Generic (Yahoo)

– Meta: search other engines (Metacrawler)

– Dedicated (Lawcrawler). See http://searchenginewatch.com/

Fall 2015 37

SEARCH ENGINES

• Each – collects – filters – stores – eliminates – serves data …

differently

Fall 2015 38

PROBLEMS WITH SEARCH ENGINES

1. Research and promotion = 2 sides of same coin

2. Sometimes what you find has nothing to do with your research skills

Fall 2015 39

HOW YOU ARE MANIPULATED

• Research and promotion = 2 sides of same coin

• What you find has little to do with your research skills

• Promotion can be • Passive (in the HTML code)• Active (submitting abstracts or

buying ads which are measured in CPMs)

Fall 2015 40

SOME GOOD SOURCES !

1. How to do research http://www.kyvl.org/html/tutorial/research/infosources.shtml

2. Advice on Research & Writing http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/mleone/web/how-to.html

3. Style, formatting documentation (Monash U) http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/tutorials/citing/

Fall 2015 41

MORE GOOD SOURCES II

5. Academic Integrity (avoiding plagiarism) (York) http://www.yorku.ca/tutorial/academic_integrity/?g11n.enc=UTF-8

6. Evaluating Websites: Criteria and Tools (Cornell U) http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/webeval.html

Fall 2015 42