In keeping with the infamous (yet traditional) manner of opening all essays that are titled, "What is X," we begin our examination of the meaning of research with a formal definition from the dictionary:
"1. hunting for facts or truth about a subject, inquiry or investigation. 2.organized scientific investigation to solve problems, test hypotheses, or develop or invent new products." The World Book Dictionary,1986
While this definition may provide a superficial look at the meaning of research, a true understanding of research requires delving into the rather amorphous realm of deciding what really is a fact and what does it mean to invent a new product?
Bruno Latour, in his book Science in Action, begins his examination of research and scientific discovery by tackling the first part of the definition and asking the age-old question "What is truth?" Naively we might think the "truth" is obvious. After all "everyone" knows the earth is round, not flat (notwithstanding the Flat Earth Society). Yet for centuries man was totally convinced that the incorrect view was true. By Latour's approach, the shape of the earth was a "black box" which was used to build many other truths (such as falling off the end of the world). It was not until someone opened the box and examined the fundamental assumptions of the "truth" that a new view , that of a round earth, was formed. The round earth then became generally accepted and is now itself a black box upon which many other new truths are built.
One form of research then could be viewed as opening the black boxes -- that is, challenging the existing assumptions -- that exist in a particular field. How do you (as an aspiring researcher), go about opening these boxes and making these challenges? Latour points out two fundamental methods for achieving this goal : reviewing literature and examining the laboratory. Reviewing literature involves not just a first level look at the logic used in a paper, but going back to supporting references to ensure the chain of black boxes used to justify a position is valid. Of course the definition of valid is one left to the researcher. Research results reported in scientific literature can never be taken at full face value, unless the logical chain of reasoning that the paper is built upon can itself be accepted. A flaw in reasoning, or failure to obtain support from the literature can allow a researcher to reject the presented results and thus the newly proposed "fact." This allows the challenger to then create his own explanations and reasearch agenda to propose a "fact."
Examining the laboratory involves evaluating the processes used to obtain empirical data. Empirical data has a concreteness that bolsters any research claim made in the literature. While we may tend to dismiss literary claims as mere rhetoric, it is more difficult to dismiss results based upon seemingly hard evidence. It is often the methods of obtaining empirical data that become subject to our probing, as in the black box concept already discussed. It then becomes possible to believe or disbelieve results based upon whether these results were obtained through valid methods. Again, the definition of valid is left to the researcher.
Facts, truth and validity in the end, at least in Latour's mind, are the result not of being true, not of being some natural law, but rather of being accepted by some community of practice. Faith in the agreed-to facts overcomes any challenges by the sheer number of qualified practitioners in the field where the fact applies. This is an intriguing concept because lay-people tend to consider things like gravity as laws because those laws form some sort of natural tautology. In actuality, gravity is a law because an overwhelming number of scientists agree that it is. One goal then for a researcher is to overcome objections and build an enthusiastic following within their area of expertise.
The second definition of research leads us to a more common view of research activities -- that of scientists slaving away in a dark laboratory and through some magical process inventing something totally unique. In his book Chase, Chance and Creativity, James Austin presents an interesting look at invention (or discovery) by integrating the "luck" or chance factor into the research process. Chance helps to describe those times in the midst of research when a major discovery is made by accident while actually looking for something else. Some good examples include the discovery of penicillin by Fleming, and the creation of a popular PC operating system by a twelve-year old who was actually trying to invent the ultimate 32-bit virus (this latter example is, of course, a joke). The following quote helps to illustrate this principle of research:
"Experimental ideas are very often born by chance as a result of fortuitous observations. Nothing is more common, and it is really the simplest way to begin a piece of scientific work. We walk, so to speak, in the realm of science, and we pursue what happens to present itself accidentally to our eyes." Claude Bernard
Many great discoveries were based upon a chance observation that was turned into a profound discovery. But there is so much more to the discovery process than just a serendipitous event. After all how many people before Newton had been hit in the head with an apple? How many people had observed bread mold before Fleming? A researcher has to have the intellectual preparation to understand the significance of a chance event when it occurs. It is only with preparation that an observer can take the ball and run with it so to speak when presented with a discovery opportunity.
We have examined what others think of research as a fundamental activity, but there are certainly other general activities that affect research in a university setting. One of these is the challenge of balancing instructional duties with research activities for those who are professors and for balancing classes with research for those who are students. Closely tied to this is the need to constantly churn out a near endless stream of papers and publications reporting on the fruits of your research activities. It is not enough to simply write wild ideas however, as the papers must begin to establish themselves as black boxes that can be integrated and used by others in their research activities. Sometimes instruction, writing and research tasks can work in synergistic harmony -- for instance, when the instruction is providing the background knowledge necessary to recognize those chance encounters with destiny. On the other hand, instructional duties that do not contribute to this needed background may be seen by "pure" researchers as onerous activities unrelated to their primary mission. A good academician I believe is one who can teach with an enthusiastic flair, even when the subject matter may be considered "beneath" their level of expertise, by recognizing that they are developing the next generation of researchers and preparing those future researchers to recognize fortuitous chance when it arises.
Another important consideration for a researcher to bear in mind is that many of the chance observations that have led to great discoveries have required cross-disciplinary knowledge. This reinforces the idea of "computing" versus "computer science" which was discussed by Dean Freeman. By widening their horizons, researchers can better prepare themselves for taking advantage of the chance aspect of research and discoveries. Nothing is too far afield, since one day it may be potentially useful in recognizing the next great innovation in science.
A final consideration is the importance of collaboration. Take a look at the Nobel prize in science over the last several years and you will see a marked trend towards joint awards. To paraphrase a somewhat trite expression -- No researcher is an island. We have already seen that facts themselves become facts through acceptance by a community of practice. A researcher must actively participate in that community not only to get his own facts accepted, but to validate other's work as well.
In conclusion, research is a complex activity of building upon other's work, challenging accepted ideas (when appropriate), and making new contributions which can be used by others to build their research upon. Research demands an individual who not only knows his area in depth, but also has a general breadth of knowledge so that chance encounters with potentially great discoveries can be recognized. Finally, research in academia demands a commitment not just to the laboratory but to the classroom. As researchers in academia, there is a responsibility not only to make contributions, but to develop a new generation of researchers who can themselves make valuable contributions to the field.