Questioning Research…

My research question has definitely changed over the course of the semester.  I have changed and re-changed subjects so often that it has been difficult to keep track.  I have had to be a little more introspective about my interests in order to decide on a research topic.  Taking a deep look at your interests and thinking how to undertake a detailed exploration of them is actually a more difficult task than you would expect.

I have definitely learned how to take a new approach to research, as I have had to think of new approaches and methods to tackle different subject areas.  Not having any research background, I had a fairly stereotypical view of research (labcoats and scientists), so it took some time for me to adjust to the different types of research that can be done with different methods.

I am still wrestling with my research question in that I am not sure where to place my focus on my topic.  I can think of broad questions like "how does this work?" or "where did this come from?", but it is difficult to focus a research question to a specific issue or interest in my topic area.  And though I might come up with some sub-questions for my topic, but I am never confident that each question is as interesting as the topic as a whole.  You want to really explore the entirety of a subject and a feasible research question can sometimes feel limiting.

Peer Reviewing my Peers…

Well, I am quite late for this post.  To make up for my tardiness, I decided that I would take this as an opportunity to respond to all of my group members previous posts on this topic.  Think of it as a sort of peer review (and like peer review, it comes long after the original submissions!)

Akash has found some other interesting incidents involving controversy in peer review.  It is interesting to note that some incidents of peer review failure were cases where the research was perfectly valid, but it was completely plagiarized.  I think this serves as a good example of where peer review might not be able to hold up a standard.  I think that most peer reviewers would only being doing a review of an article to see if the ideas that it is espousing contain any merit.  I would not be surprised if many peer reviewers would be caught off guard by an idea that is perfectly sound, but completely unoriginal.  I think that this is especially true if you consider the fact that most research does not occur in isolation; it would be very difficult to be certain if a good idea in one paper hasn't already been thought of in another.

I like Lauren's discussion of Wikipedia as a source of peer review.  And I agree with her assessment that, despite Fitzpatrick's assertion that Wikipedia is a platform of ongoing peer review, the reality does not hold up that standard.  It is good to point out that most Wikipedians are not experts, as I think that this very much does make a difference in the quality of the review.  I have seen and heard of some of the infamous "edit wars" that can occur in Wikipedia over the simple placement of a single word.  A controversy caused by the placement of a word is less the exception, and more a rule.  I believe that this is for the precise reason that Lauren indicates: Wikipedians are mostly non-experts; but you do not need to be an expert to have an opinion on word placement.

I also think that this is why "Wikigroaning" exists.  "Wikigroaning" is a term coined for the practice of comparing the word count of a regular, serious encyclopedia article with a pop-culture one.  The resulting groan you will experience is how this term achieved its name.  Or, do a Wikigroan with my favourite method: compare an article on serious subject on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War (word count: ~14000)
With an article on the Star Wars Wookiepedia:  http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wicket_Wystri_Warrick (word count: ~25000)

I don't know if I completely agree with Jess' point on the Sokal affair (sorry!): That if satire slips past peer review it is a sign of sickness in the discipline itself.  I think that I will go back to my first point, about a peer reviewer being caught off guard by a plagiarized concept, and say that the same is true here.  If you are not expecting to look for satire, it can be extremely hard to spot.  Especially if you are the one who the satire is being direct towards.  We can have a very large blind spot when it comes to our own ideas and beliefs, and satire can very easily slip right past us.  And oftentimes, the point of the satire is completely lost on those it is directed against.  As in the Sokal affair, where the publishers of the journal said that they did in fact read Sokal's article, but saw nothing wrong with it, it just needed to be better written.  When something like this happens, you can start to lose track of who is "trolling" whom…

Vanessa's post about the peer review process was quite interesting.  Hearing about her friend's experience with peer review makes me wonder more about the process as well.  How is it that her friend could find a paper fundamentally flawed, yet others see it as being fit for publishing?  The questions that Vanessa raises at the end of her post are all good points, and I think that there are no easy answers to any of them.  Hearing her friend's experience with peer review does make me start to see the more troubling implications of peer review (I am just speculating here): What if her friend really wasn't qualified to read the paper, and completely misinterpreted it? Or, even worse, what if she was the only one who actually read the paper, and found it flawed?  Not something that you would want to think about too much…

I like Cythia's point about the personal impact of peer review.  When you are choosing to publish a paper, it is really up to you on where you want to publish it and what kind of feedback you are looking for.  While I am sure that many academics would like to see their work in the most prestigious journal, it is really more about seeking the feedback and recognition that will help your ideas to grow.  It is up to the individuals who publish papers to decide on how they want to have their work recognized, and which peer review process works or doesn't work is really a choice that is made by them.

I found myself laughing when reading Eva's post.  I liked her assessment of the Sokal affair, and I found that it was in line with my own thinking: it only created a controversy, and did not really advance a new topic or enlightened change in the system.  What made me laugh was that Eva's post made me think of Sokal's hoax being assessed as if it were his paper being submitted (as a sort of meta-analyis).  Eva's summation of it not being a very original idea is what gave me a chuckle.  Eva also has a good point about peer review being flexible in regards to open vs closed review.  I agree that a combination of both would allow for more constructive reviews.  And I think this relates to Eva's point about author's being flexible in their choice of peer review.

Courtney's post about peer review and the full stomach reminded me of my legal work.  And that I think I had heard about her professor's research in my studies as well.  It is a well accepted fact of legal work that judges are humans too, and are subject to the same weaknesses as everyone else (so it is never wise to do anything to annoy them; including presenting your case at lunch hour)  Though Courtney relates this to reviewers having an empty stomach, and thus giving a negative review of a paper, I think that the observation that others have made about the possible bias of reviewers is a more probable concern.  An empty stomach is the least of your worries when you are dealing with humans with all the same biases and weaknesses that you have.  (I still think that attaching a cookie to your paper is an excellent idea).

Ghaddar makes a good point about nonsensical writings not being related to single papers, but entire disciplines.  Whenever I encounter the subject of pseudoscience, I always think about phrenology, and because I am a Simpsons fan, I think about Mr. Burns' response when Smithers says that "phrenology has been dismissed as quackery 160 years ago" Mr. Burns says, "Of course you'd say that...you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!" (Simpsons, 3F06).  I think that this quote actually teaches us something about peer review: that it is useless when an entire discipline is caught in its own nonsense.  Ghaddar makes a good point in the usefulness of allowing public review of academic papers.  This might help to shed some light in the darker corners academia, where peer review would make less difference.

Well, this has been the longest post ever.  I hope that I was able to hit on some good points in response to each person, and that my peer review of their work helps them out.  Also, I have no idea what the correct format for citing Simpsons episodes is, so I hope that my attempt works.  And now, I hereby deem all of the previous posts to have passed my peer review and be suitable for publishing!

Preservation and security…

I think that there are a few ways to preserve your data for the future.  One principle that I follow in many areas that require thorough record keeping – or attention to detail – is the principle of redundancy.  Redundancy is not a bad thing in those contexts, because keeping many copies of the same document can help ensure preservation is successful.  To have many saved copies of documents, and to use any cloud-based services will help keep your documents safe in case of machine failure (or other catastrophe).

In order to ensure the opposite effect – destroying sensitive material when necessary – I would use the reverse of the same principle: keep as few copies as possible.  And to add to the security and safety of the document, I would also say that it should be encrypted.  So, even if you lose track of the document or have it stolen, the information is still (relatively) safe.

Actually, both my points about document preservation have basis in the subject of security.  I mentioned before that redundancy is a principle that I follow in many areas, and security is one of those areas.  It is generally understood that there is no foolproof system for ensuring absolute security.  However, if you use multiple redundant systems then if one system is broken the next will continue to uphold security.  And the encryption of (sensitive) documents is generally good practice for anyone, even those without confidential research materials.

Another idea to keep in mind with preservation of research methods is what I mentioned in class in regards to references.  Using too many contemporary references can make your paper more difficult to understand for a future audience.  You should be tailor your references and ideas to be understood by people in any context, not just those who you would assume have the same level of cultural understanding as you.  I remember in high school when we were studying Hamlet, and I encountered this quote:

Such dear concernings hide? Who would do so?

No, in despite of sense and secrecy,

Unpeg the basket on the house’s top.

Let the birds fly, and like the famous ape,

To try conclusions, in the basket creep 

(Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4, Line 195-199)

I went to the footnotes of my text, and I found that this reference to the "famous ape" is completely lost to a modern audience.  No one has any idea what Shakespeare is referring to in this quote, because this parable has not survived.  This means that we cannot form any real conclusions about what Shakespeare is actually saying in this quote.  There might be some great sub-textual meaning, but without the original reference, we will never know.  (My theory is that, since Shakespeare also liked to create new words, he created this reference "out of thin air" just to confuse us).

Skeuomorphs: old stuff in disguise…

Since Prof. Galey mentioned my earlier post, I thought that it would be a good idea to follow-up on it.  I think what would make the QWERTY keyboard an interesting artifact to research is the fact that it is a product of a different era, but is still used today.

This is similar to other technological artifacts that exist in our modern media.  Have you ever noticed that the "call" button on your phone uses an image of a old handset?  Or that when you save a document, you usually click on a image of a floppy disk, which is a technology that is well over a decade out of date.  What is interesting is that we are living in a time where most living people who use technology will understand these images as references to legacy equipment.  But, the future is approaching, and more new users of technology will have never seen an example of these items.  Here is a wikipedia article, and a name, for this phenomenon:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph

Where the QWERTY keyboard gets interesting is that unlike most skeumorphs – where there is a contemporary decorative element that represents a former functional requirement – the QWERTY keyboard actually has a functional design based on a former functional requirement.

This also bleeds into next week's blogging question on how to make your research understandable to people in the future.  We are often not aware of how the things we use today will be understood in the future.  Some references and ideas will be lost to time, but will sometimes still impact the future, but not in the way we expected or intended.  It is interesting to step back and look at a thing or an idea, and ask "Why do we do it this way?".  You can start a research project from that kind of thinking, and you might be surprised what you find.

Finally, I wanted to post a picture of the Dvorak layout in case anyone was interested in how it differs from QWERTY, so here it is:

Trust me, once you get used to it, it all makes sense.

Keyboards and Cuba…

A little bit late this time, but I have an excuse.  I took a trip for reading week to Cuba. I am posting this from the hotel lobby. I am late because I lost track of time when I was on the beach.  Not a very good excuse, but it is the truth.

It is funny that when you have an open topic, it is the most difficult to create a topic to discuss. I suppose I will just bring up a topic that has been on my mind for a potential research topic for discussion. I am a user of the Dvorak keyboard layout, and I have been interested in examining the use of different keyboard layouts among people. The Dvorak keyboard is a keyboard layout that was designed to be easier to type with than the standard QWERTY layout used by most computers. The reason is that the QWERTY layout was not designed to be ergonomic for the user, but to minimize typewriter jams (on old typewriters the bars that would imprint the letters would sometimes cross if the typist press certain keys in quick succession). So, the QWERTY layout is an example of a legacy format that is no longer relevant. The Dvorak layout was designed without typewriters in mind, and was focused on the user instead. It is supposed to allow users to type faster, and reduce strain, though is claim has been debated since the creation of the layout.

I started to use the layout out of interest, and I had to retrain my touch typing skills from using the QWERTY layout. I wanted to examine the experience of the users of the different layouts, and how people adapt to switching between the different layouts.  There has already been research done in this area, but I would like to see what I would be able to contribute to, and what areas would need further investigation.

This is just an idea that I have had, and I am still thinking on how to pursue it.

El-Ahrairah and Hriaroo…

While not exactly a statistic, this week's blog question – relating to counting and observation – did remind me of something that I read a long time ago that has stuck with me.  One of my favourite books is Watership Down by Richard Adams.  If you have not read it, it is a very nice book about some bunnies that go on a grand adventure.  Honestly, it is a great book.

One of the reasons the book is interesting is for some of the concepts and words that are introduced.  For example, the rabbits in the novel have a word for being paralyzed with fear – "tharn" – that really captures that feeling better than any English word I can think of.  I also remember in the book "The Stand", Stephen King uses "tharn", and discuses how well it captures that feeling of being like a deer in the headlights. 

But the word and concept from Watership Down that this week's blogging question reminded of is "hrair": which is the rabbit's word for any number that is greater than five.  So it can mean "five" or "five thousand".  The reason for this is that the rabbits in the book do not have the concept of any number greater than four. Like the Sherlock Holmes quote in the blogging question, they can see numbers greater than four, but they have no way to really observe them.

It has stuck with me because I have come to believe that the concept of "hrair" is something that is not unique to the fictional rabbits in the book.  I have heard that there are some languages that do not use numbers, but concepts of "many" and "few".  But more than that, I think that most people are not really able to intuitively understand numbers.  Yes, we can discuss them as concepts, but it is difficult for us to really visualize and understand numbers.  I have a suspicion that they may be a sort of social construct.  To really understand what the difference between five thousand or five million is something that is, I believe, not actually grasped by most people.

I would be curious to know what the limits are to human understanding of numbers; if we are like the rabbits and cannot really comprehend numbers greater than four.  I might consider making this into a research project (either as an experiment, or to see if it has been done before). This is especially so 
after the results of the first assignment; I think I need to change my research direction from my first paper.  The final paper for this class has me feeling a bit tharn :)

My definition of fieldwork…

Though I am not sure in what field I am studying, I can give a loose definition of what I consider fieldwork in information science based on my own habits and preferences for my research.  For me, fieldwork has to contain some element of human interaction.  Reading materials are a good way to have convenient access to information on a wide variety of subjects, but there is only so much you can learn from reading.  I think this is at the heart of Park's point about fieldwork.  That merely examining the subject through the observations of others in print is only one way to approach fieldwork.  And that going to the source of the information will help you examine the research in a new way.

The other reason I single out human interaction as being fieldwork is because it fits best with my own habits and preferences.  Information, and books in particular, are all created by people, and I think that sometimes rather than reading a book on a particular subject, it is better to go and talk to an expert in the area that you are interested in.  I try to do this as often as I can when I want to know about a subject, or I have a particular question.  I find that getting an answer, or a lecture, from a person who is knowledgeable about something is the most enlightening type of information.  I have been known to call, or to travel somewhere, to speak to someone in order to have one question answered.  It is not always the most efficient method (especially in my example of needing one question answered), but the advantage I get from it is that I can ask further questions to clarify, and that I can hold greater confidence in the information that I get.  We live in an age that has an abundance of information that is easily accessible, but without any guarantees to the quality of the information.  Asking a person directly is a good method to practice because it allows you to put a name and a face to the information that you collect; rather than dealing with the uncertainty of online sources.

Research Writings…

I admit that I have not read that much “research writing”, so it took me some time to think of a piece to use as an example. However, of the little that I have read, I do remember one piece that I read some time ago. It is a somewhat (in)famous essay by Aldous Huxley (the author of Brave New World) called The Doors of Perception. The essay is a first-hand account of the experience of taking the drug mescaline. Huxley describes everything that he sees, feels and experiences while under the drug. From what I recall, it very was descriptive and engaging. It was giving an insider's look into something that most of us would not try. It was also very reflective. Huxley not only related his experience, but also discussed points on the wider implications and uses of his mescaline trip.


Overall, the essay was very interesting for providing an account of a unique experience, but it was also a good example of critical analysis of personal research. Even though Huxley himself was the one who experienced the mescaline trip, he is still able to examine his own observations critically, and relate them to his audience without trying to convince that his experience was profound or ultimately necessary. I feel that it is a responsible idea for a researcher to not “advertise” or embellish their experiments to make them more appealing to the reader. I think that Huxley accomplished that in The Doors of Perception.


An example of fiction writing that I believe exemplifies research qualities is the Dune series by Frank Herbert. If you are not familiar with the series, it is a science fiction story that takes place in the far distant future of humanity; all “thinking machines” have been outlawed, and a unique society has grown out of this technological and cultural change.


Where I find qualities of research writing in Dune is in the details of the different groups that inhabit this world. For example, there are the Bene Gesserit, who are an order of women who have mastery over many different mental powers, but particularly over the power of observation. They are almost telepathic in their ability to read the actions of others in order to understand their thoughts. This is an interesting idea that relates to research observation in psychology. The book is taking the idea of clinical observation to an extreme, by suggesting that powers of observation could be used as a mind-reading super-power. Also, the protagonist of the first book has to gain the trust of an isolated, nomadic people on the eponymous desert planet of Dune. He becomes a sort of ethnographer as he tries to understand their culture (which has a surprising origin) in order to use them to his advantage. Both of these examples have characters using research techniques, but in a more “space-opera” setting.


There are many different themes touched on in the books, and it is considered one of the landmark works of science fiction. And it is also one of my favourite books (I have read the first book in the series several times).

Ethical concerns for my research proposal…

I have thought a bit about the possible ethical concerns that present themselves with my project.  A potential cause of some ethical problems might be the fact that I will be interview an identifiable party about intimate details of their life.  Where it gets tricky though is that the person I am interviewing is my grandmother.  This makes any ethical concerns about my project harder to identify.  Since my project is closely connect to me personally, it is not possible to avoid identifying my grandmother, as her identity is central to the project.  Thus the privacy of my grandmother is much more difficult to protect.

As part of my research question, I have decided to use non-standard interviewing practices in order to gauge their effectiveness and importance in an interview project.  The method I have chosen to adopt requires me to adopt an impersonal attitude toward the interview.  This might be an ethical concern as this method  might cause confusion and social discomfort to the interviewee.  I will have to be careful to explain the method in before the interview begins, so that the discomfort to the interviewee is minimized. 

Further to the previous point, there is also a problem with my grandmother being in a vulnerable group of the population: the elderly.  She is over 90 years old and, though her mind is still good, would require extra care and consideration when I am interacting with her.  The point above about using a non-standard interview practice makes this second point a greater concern.

Finally, there is the problem that I am related to my (first) interview subject, and therefore might not be able to operate without encountering a conflict of interest.  Like it was mentioned in class, using someone for research that you have another established relationship with outside the research project can create a difficult situation.  For example, if a family secret is revealed during the interview, there is a possible conflict.  This is because if the information that is revealed is meaningful to the project, but is harmful to my family, I will not be able to able to choose whether on not to publish the information with impartially.  I would have to choose between harming my family, or harming my research.

Overall, there are some ethical concerns with my project but, fortunately, they will not be a problem for me since I am not going to seriously consider this as an academic research project (but as a personal project, I might consider it as an undertaking...)

Information perspectives in my research area…

The influence of an information perspective on my project will depend on my research question, which I am still debating. However, in my area of interest, there are several options that I can pursue with an information perspective in mind. I recently took another look at my daisy from last week, and I filled in the final missing petal that I had left blank. With this week's blog question in mind, I thought about the role of information in my grandmother's life, and I decided that the missing petal was “Censorship and Surveillance”. With these topics in mind, I might be able to formulate a research question that involves an information science perspective.

In my grandmother's life, and during the area that she lived, censorship and surveillance were common factors relating to information, that would have had an impact on my grandmother's life, and subsequently, my own.

For example, in my family there is a tradition of emphasizing the importance of education. My family has always held education and learning in high regard, and it was often encouraged (an example of this was when we would receive Christmas or birthday presents, it was a rule that if we asked for books, or other learning materials, we could expect to receive more than other gifts, like games or toys) This stems from the experience of my grandparents during the war. My grandfather was prohibited by the German authorities from pursuing any post-secondary education. He spent the war as a chauffeur to a German businessman, but he would acquire school textbooks and hide them under the seat of the car he drove in order to continue his education.

That is just one story that I have heard about my grandparents experience that would relate to information perspective based research. I would hope that if I were to further uncover my grandmother's life story, and gain knowledge from her about my other family members, I might uncover more knowledge about the role of information during their lives in that time period. This could lead to a research question based around the comparing and contrasting of my own experience with my grandmother's, and how her experience has influenced my own. This is an inchoate idea however, and would need more refining before I can consider it a full research question.

So, here is my example of the bedraggled daisy exercise. It is definitely bedraggled, but I am not sure I would call it a daisy. Like it was said in class, it resembles more of a propeller. It looks that way because Microsoft Paint does not seem to allow you to rotate selections in degrees. So I used a shape tool to allow for the angled “leaves” of the daisy. That is why my daisy is so angular.


However, the angular design did give me a benefit. While drawing the daisy, realized another category to fill in. I found that at one point the daisy resembled a cross and I thought of the Christianity category. I am not religious, but I know that my grandmother is, so I am sure that it will be a topical part of the narrative. Since I am not that religiously minded, I may have forgotten this category had it not been for my angular daisy.


Genealogy is something that this project will definitely encompass. A large part of the project is motivated by me wanting to know more about my family's history to better understand myself. I am sure that I will be doing a lot of exploring in my own family's history.


The category “women” refers to my grandmother's experience as a woman. Something that I am sure is relevant to her life, but I am not sure how well I (as a man, and her grandson) will be able to uncover (or understand) some of the details of this category. I have heard some of her stories already, and some of them do relate to her experience as a woman of that era, so it is something I may want to explore.


History is a difficult category to define for this project. I am sure that I will be covering the personal history of my grandmother. But it is the larger history of the era that I am not sure about. I will likely try to draw the two areas together by supplementing my grandmother's oral account with other historical sources, in order to give some context to her stories. This is just an idea.


I am not sure if I am cheating with the “War” category or not. War is simply a fact of the era my grandmother lived in. So it could be said to be part of the broader “History” category...I am beginning to appreciate the plight of catalogers that we discuss in our Knowledge Organization lectures... in any case, I think it is relevant enough to warrant its own category, as war really shapes the history and lives of the period that it occurs in.


Language and Ethnography relates to my grandmother's background, and to the fact that ethnicity was an issue of the era. My grandmother is Polish, so the project will encompass her experience as a Pole during the German occupation, and also the struggles with language during that period, and later on.


I left one petal blank because I was having a tough time coming up with another category before the deadline...I will try to come back to the daisy later to get another category filled in. But I would also appreciate if anyone has a suggestion.

When presented with the question of what research topic would I choose if I were guaranteed not to fail, I find that I am at a loss.  Being given that much freedom and a guarantee of success is such an unusual situation that my mind freezes at the prospect...Thinking about this obstacle, I started to wonder about my own desire for knowledge.  What would I actually want to know, and why would I want to know it?  Being guaranteed success means that at the end of the reasearch project, I would have succeeded in gaining the knowledge I wanted, but what knowledge would I want to possess?

Being this puzzled and lost feels like a failing of mine.  Why can't I think and act more effectively when I am presented with a problem with this?  Why don't I understand myself better?  Asking these critical questions is why I decided that, to answer to this week's question, if I were to choose a research project in which I was guaranteed not to fail, then I would choose to research myself.

What can I actually reasearch to help better understand myself?  I should, arguably, know everything there is to know about me, as I am seeing the world through my own eyes.  But, that is what makes the topic difficult.  As said in class, "we are fish studying water".  Taking yourself on as a reasearch topic means that you will have to overcome your individual perception and knowledge to try to understand yourself better.

However, one method to better understand yourself is to examine the lives of others.  Particularly the lives of those close to you, or that have had a large influence on your life, such as your family.  My mother once suggested for me to go and visit with my grandmother and document the history of her life.  My grandmother is Polish, and lived in Poland during the occupation by Germany.  She has lead an interesting life and has a great deal of information about her past and my family.  I would like to think that understanding my family's past might help to understand my present self.  This could be a possible avenue of research for me to undertake...