Research

For other uses, see Research (disambiguation). "Researched" redirects here. For the organisation, see ResearchED. "Researcher" redirects here. For other uses, see Researcher (disambiguation).

Part of a series on
Research
A laptop computer next to archival materials
Research design
Research strategy
Philosophical schools
Methodology
Methods
Tools and software
Philosophy portal
Communication
General aspects
Fields
Disciplines
Categories

Research is "creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge".[1] It involves the collection, organization, and analysis of evidence to increase understanding of a topic, characterized by a particular attentiveness to controlling sources of bias and error. These activities are characterized by accounting and controlling for biases. A research project may be an expansion of past work in the field. To test the validity of instruments, procedures, or experiments, research may replicate elements of prior projects or the project as a whole.

The primary purposes of basic research (as opposed to applied research) are documentation, discovery, interpretation, and the research and development (R&D) of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge. Approaches to research depend on epistemologies, which vary considerably both within and between humanities and sciences. There are several forms of research: scientific, humanities, artistic, economic, social, business, marketing, practitioner research, life, technological, etc. The scientific study of research practices is known as meta-research.

A researcher is a person who conducts research, especially in order to discover new information or to reach a new understanding.[2] In order to be a social researcher or a social scientist, one should have enormous knowledge of subjects related to social science that they are specialized in. Similarly, in order to be a natural science researcher, the person should have knowledge of fields related to natural science (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, zoology and so on). Professional associations provide one pathway to mature in the research profession.[3]

Etymology

Aristotle, (384–322 BC), one of the early figures in the development of the scientific method[4]

The word research is derived from the Middle French "recherche", which means "to go about seeking", the term itself being derived from the Old French term "recerchier," a compound word from "re-" + "cerchier", or "sercher", meaning 'search'.[5] The earliest recorded use of the term was in 1577.[5]

Definitions

Research has been defined in a number of different ways, and while there are similarities, there does not appear to be a single, all-encompassing definition that is embraced by all who engage in it.

Research, in its simplest terms, is searching for knowledge and searching for truth. In a formal sense, it is a systematic study of a problem attacked by a deliberately chosen strategy, which starts with choosing an approach to preparing a blueprint (design) and acting upon it in terms of designing research hypotheses, choosing methods and techniques, selecting or developing data collection tools, processing the data, interpretation, and ending with presenting solution(s) of the problem.[6]

Another definition of research is given by John W. Creswell, who states that "research is a process of steps used to collect and analyze information to increase our understanding of a topic or issue". It consists of three steps: pose a question, collect data to answer the question, and present an answer to the question.[7]

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines research more generally to also include studying already existing knowledge: "studious inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws".[5]

Forms of research

Original research

"Original research" redirects here. For the Wikipedia prohibition against user-generated, unpublished research, see Wikipedia:No original research.

Original research, also called primary research, is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary-source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge rather than present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).[8][9] Original research can take various forms, depending on the discipline it pertains to. In experimental work, it typically involves direct or indirect observation of the researched subject(s), 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.[10]

The degree of originality of the research is among the major criteria for articles to be published in academic journals and usually established by means of peer review.[11] Graduate students are commonly required to perform original research as part of a dissertation.[12]

Scientific research

Main article: Scientific method
Primary scientific research being carried out at the Microscopy Laboratory of the Idaho National Laboratory
Scientific research equipment at MIT
German maritime research vessel Sonne

Scientific research is a systematic way of gathering data and harnessing curiosity.[citation needed] This research provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of the nature and the properties of the world. It makes practical applications possible. Scientific research may be funded by public authorities, charitable organizations, and private organizations. Scientific research can be subdivided by discipline.

Generally, research is understood to follow a certain structural process. Though the order may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following steps are usually part of most formal research, both basic and applied:

  1. Observations and formation of the topic: Consists of the subject area of one's interest and following that subject area to conduct subject-related research. The subject area should not be randomly chosen since it requires reading a vast amount of literature on the topic to determine the gap in the literature the researcher intends to narrow. A keen interest in the chosen subject area is advisable. The research will have to be justified by linking its importance to already existing knowledge about the topic.
  2. Hypothesis: A testable prediction which designates the relationship between two or more variables.
  3. Conceptual definition: Description of a concept by relating it to other concepts.
  4. Operational definition: Details in regards to defining the variables and how they will be measured/assessed in the study.
  5. Gathering of data: Consists of identifying a population and selecting samples, gathering information from or about these samples by using specific research instruments. The instruments used for data collection must be valid and reliable.
  6. Analysis of data: Involves breaking down the individual pieces of data to draw conclusions about it.
  7. Data Interpretation: This can be represented through tables, figures, and pictures, and then described in words.
  8. Test, revising of hypothesis
  9. Conclusion, reiteration if necessary

A common misconception is that a hypothesis will be proven (see, rather, null hypothesis). Generally, a hypothesis is used to make predictions that can be tested by observing the outcome of an experiment. If the outcome is inconsistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected (see falsifiability). However, if the outcome is consistent with the hypothesis, the experiment is said to support the hypothesis. This careful language is used because researchers recognize that alternative hypotheses may also be consistent with the observations. In this sense, a hypothesis can never be proven, but rather only supported by surviving rounds of scientific testing and, eventually, becoming widely thought of as true.

A useful hypothesis allows prediction and within the accuracy of observation of the time, the prediction will be verified. As the accuracy of observation improves with time, the hypothesis may no longer provide an accurate prediction. In this case, a new hypothesis will arise to challenge the old, and to the extent that the new hypothesis makes more accurate predictions than the old, the new will supplant it. Researchers can also use a null hypothesis, which states no relationship or difference between the independent or dependent variables.

Research in the humanities

Research in the humanities involves different methods such as for example hermeneutics and semiotics. Humanities scholars usually do not search for the ultimate correct answer to a question, but instead, explore the issues and details that surround it. Context is always important, and context can be social, historical, political, cultural, or ethnic. An example of research in the humanities is historical research, which is embodied in historical method. Historians use primary sources and other evidence to systematically investigate a topic, and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past. Other studies aim to merely examine the occurrence of behaviours in societies and communities, without particularly looking for reasons or motivations to explain these. These studies may be qualitative or quantitative, and can use a variety of approaches, such as queer theory or feminist theory.[13]

Artistic research

Artistic research, also seen as 'practice-based research', can take form when creative works are considered both the research and the object of research itself. It is the debatable body of thought which offers an alternative to purely scientific methods in research in its search for knowledge and truth.

The controversial trend of artistic teaching becoming more academics-oriented is leading to artistic research being accepted as the primary mode of enquiry in art as in the case of other disciplines.[14] One of the characteristics of artistic research is that it must accept subjectivity as opposed to the classical scientific methods. As such, it is similar to the social sciences in using qualitative research and intersubjectivity as tools to apply measurement and critical analysis.[15]

Artistic research has been defined by the School of Dance and Circus (Dans och Cirkushögskolan, DOCH), Stockholm in the following manner – "Artistic research is to investigate and test with the purpose of gaining knowledge within and for our artistic disciplines. It is based on artistic practices, methods, and criticality. Through presented documentation, the insights gained shall be placed in a context."[16] Artistic research aims to enhance knowledge and understanding with presentation of the arts.[17] A simpler understanding by Julian Klein defines artistic research as any kind of research employing the artistic mode of perception.[18] For a survey of the central problematics of today's artistic research, see Giaco Schiesser.[19]

According to artist Hakan Topal, in artistic research, "perhaps more so than other disciplines, intuition is utilized as a method to identify a wide range of new and unexpected productive modalities".[20] Most writers, whether of fiction or non-fiction books, also have to do research to support their creative work. This may be factual, historical, or background research. Background research could include, for example, geographical or procedural research.[21]

The Society for Artistic Research (SAR) publishes the triannual Journal for Artistic Research (JAR),[22][23] an international, online, open access, and peer-reviewed journal for the identification, publication, and dissemination of artistic research and its methodologies, from all arts disciplines and it runs the Research Catalogue (RC),[24][25][26] a searchable, documentary database of artistic research, to which anyone can contribute.

Patricia Leavy addresses eight arts-based research (ABR) genres: narrative inquiry, fiction-based research, poetry, music, dance, theatre, film, and visual art.[27]

In 2016, the European League of Institutes of the Arts launched The Florence Principles' on the Doctorate in the Arts.[28] The Florence Principles relating to the Salzburg Principles and the Salzburg Recommendations of the European University Association name seven points of attention to specify the Doctorate / PhD in the Arts compared to a scientific doctorate / PhD. The Florence Principles have been endorsed and are supported also by AEC, CILECT, CUMULUS and SAR.

Historical research

Main article: Historical method
German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886), considered to be one of the founders of modern source-based history

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use historical sources and other evidence to research and then to write history. There are various history guidelines that are commonly used by historians in their work, under the headings of external criticism, internal criticism, and synthesis. This includes lower criticism and sensual criticism. Though items may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following concepts are part of most formal historical research:[29]

Documentary research

Main article: Documentary research

Steps in conducting research

Research design and evidence
Research cycle

Research is often conducted using the hourglass model structure of research.[30] The hourglass model starts with a broad spectrum for research, focusing in on the required information through the method of the project (like the neck of the hourglass), then expands the research in the form of discussion and results. The major steps in conducting research are:[31]

  • Identification of research problem
  • Literature review
  • Specifying the purpose of research
  • Determining specific research questions
  • Specification of a conceptual framework, sometimes including a set of hypotheses[32]
  • Choice of a methodology (for data collection)
  • Data collection
  • Verifying data
  • Analyzing and interpreting the data
  • Reporting and evaluating research
  • Communicating the research findings and, possibly, recommendations

The steps generally represent the overall process; however, they should be viewed as an ever-changing iterative process rather than a fixed set of steps.[33] Most research begins with a general statement of the problem, or rather, the purpose for engaging in the study.[34] The literature review identifies flaws or holes in previous research which provides justification for the study. Often, a literature review is conducted in a given subject area before a research question is identified. A gap in the current literature, as identified by a researcher, then engenders a research question. The research question may be parallel to the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the supposition to be tested. The researcher(s) collects data to test the hypothesis. The researcher(s) then analyzes and interprets the data via a variety of statistical methods, engaging in what is known as empirical research. The results of the data analysis in rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis are then reported and evaluated. At the end, the researcher may discuss avenues for further research. However, some researchers advocate for the reverse approach: starting with articulating findings and discussion of them, moving "up" to identification of a research problem that emerges in the findings and literature review. The reverse approach is justified by the transactional nature of the research endeavor where research inquiry, research questions, research method, relevant research literature, and so on are not fully known until the findings have fully emerged and been interpreted.

Rudolph Rummel says, "... no researcher should accept any one or two tests as definitive. It is only when a range of tests are consistent over many kinds of data, researchers, and methods can one have confidence in the results."[35]

Plato in Meno talks about an inherent difficulty, if not a paradox, of doing research that can be paraphrased in the following way, "If you know what you're searching for, why do you search for it?! [i.e., you have already found it] If you don't know what you're searching for, what are you searching for?!"[36]

Research methods

The research room at the New York Public Library, an example of secondary research in progress
Maurice Hilleman, the preeminent vaccinologist of the 20th century, is credited with saving more lives than any other scientist in that time.[37]

The goal of the research process is to produce new knowledge or deepen understanding of a topic or issue. This process takes three main forms (although, as previously discussed, the boundaries between them may be obscure):

There are two major types of empirical research design: qualitative research and quantitative research. Researchers choose qualitative or quantitative methods according to the nature of the research topic they want to investigate and the research questions they aim to answer:

Qualitative research

Qualitative research refers to much more subjective non-quantitative, use different methods of collecting data, analyzing data, interpreting data for meanings, definitions, characteristics, symbols metaphors of things. Qualitative research further classified into the following types: Ethnography: This research mainly focus on culture of group of people which includes share attributes, language, practices, structure, value, norms and material things, evaluate human lifestyle. Ethno: people, Grapho: to write, this disciple may include ethnic groups, ethno genesis, composition, resettlement and social welfare characteristics. Phenomenology: It is very powerful strategy for demonstrating methodology to health professions education as well as best suited for exploring challenging problems in health professions educations.[38] In addition, PMP researcher Mandy Sha argued that a project management approach is necessary to control the scope, schedule, and cost related to qualitative research design, participant recruitment, data collection, reporting, as well as stakeholder engagement.[39][40]

Quantitative research
This involves systematic empirical investigation of quantitative properties and phenomena and their relationships, by asking a narrow question and collecting numerical data to analyze it utilizing statistical methods. The quantitative research designs are experimental, correlational, and survey (or descriptive).[41] Statistics derived from quantitative research can be used to establish the existence of associative or causal relationships between variables. Quantitative research is linked with the philosophical and theoretical stance of positivism.

The quantitative data collection methods rely on random sampling and structured data collection instruments that fit diverse experiences into predetermined response categories. These methods produce results that can be summarized, compared, and generalized to larger populations if the data are collected using proper sampling and data collection strategies.[42] Quantitative research is concerned with testing hypotheses derived from theory or being able to estimate the size of a phenomenon of interest.[42]

If the research question is about people, participants may be randomly assigned to different treatments (this is the only way that a quantitative study can be considered a true experiment).[citation needed] If this is not feasible, the researcher may collect data on participant and situational characteristics to statistically control for their influence on the dependent, or outcome, variable. If the intent is to generalize from the research participants to a larger population, the researcher will employ probability sampling to select participants.[43]

In either qualitative or quantitative research, the researcher(s) may collect primary or secondary data.[42] Primary data is data collected specifically for the research, such as through interviews or questionnaires. Secondary data is data that already exists, such as census data, which can be re-used for the research. It is good ethical research practice to use secondary data wherever possible.[44]

Mixed-method research, i.e. research that includes qualitative and quantitative elements, using both primary and secondary data, is becoming more common.[45] This method has benefits that using one method alone cannot offer. For example, a researcher may choose to conduct a qualitative study and follow it up with a quantitative study to gain additional insights.[46]

Big data has brought big impacts on research methods so that now many researchers do not put much effort into data collection; furthermore, methods to analyze easily available huge amounts of data have also been developed. Types of Research Method 1. Observatory Research Method 2. Correlation Research Method [47]

Non-empirical research

Non-empirical (theoretical) research is an approach that involves the development of theory as opposed to using observation and experimentation. As such, non-empirical research seeks solutions to problems using existing knowledge as its source. This, however, does not mean that new ideas and innovations cannot be found within the pool of existing and established knowledge. Non-empirical research is not an absolute alternative to empirical research because they may be used together to strengthen a research approach. Neither one is less effective than the other since they have their particular purpose in science. Typically empirical research produces observations that need to be explained; then theoretical research tries to explain them, and in so doing generates empirically testable hypotheses; these hypotheses are then tested empirically, giving more observations that may need further explanation; and so on. See Scientific method.

A simple example of a non-empirical task is the prototyping of a new drug using a differentiated application of existing knowledge; another is the development of a business process in the form of a flow chart and texts where all the ingredients are from established knowledge. Much of cosmological research is theoretical in nature. Mathematics research does not rely on externally available data; rather, it seeks to prove theorems about mathematical objects.

Research ethics

This section is an excerpt from Research ethics.[edit]

Research ethics is a discipline within the study of applied ethics. Its scope ranges from general scientific integrity and misconduct to the treatment of human and animal subjects. The social responsibilities of scientists and researchers are not traditionally included and are less well defined.

The discipline is most developed in medical research. Beyond the issues of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism that arise in every scientific field, research design in human subject research and animal testing are the areas that raise ethical questions most often.

The list of historic cases includes many large-scale violations and crimes against humanity such as Nazi human experimentation and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment which led to international codes of research ethics. No approach has been universally accepted, but typically-cited codes are the 1947 Nuremberg Code, the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and the 1978 Belmont Report.

Today, research ethics committees, such as those of the US, UK, and EU, govern and oversee the responsible conduct of research.

Research in other fields such as social sciences, information technology, biotechnology, or engineering may generate ethical concerns.

Problems in research

Meta-research

Main article: Meta-research

Meta-research is the study of research through the use of research methods. Also known as "research on research", it aims to reduce waste and increase the quality of research in all fields. Meta-research concerns itself with the detection of bias, methodological flaws, and other errors and inefficiencies. Among the finding of meta-research is a low rates of reproducibility across a large number of fields. This widespread difficulty in reproducing research has been termed the "replication crisis."[48]

Methods of research

In many disciplines, Western methods of conducting research are predominant.[49] Researchers are overwhelmingly taught Western methods of data collection and study. The increasing participation of indigenous peoples as researchers has brought increased attention to the scientific lacuna in culturally sensitive methods of data collection.[50] Western methods of data collection may not be the most accurate or relevant for research on non-Western societies. For example, "Hua Oranga" was created as a criterion for psychological evaluation in Māori populations, and is based on dimensions of mental health important to the Māori people – "taha wairua (the spiritual dimension), taha hinengaro (the mental dimension), taha tinana (the physical dimension), and taha whanau (the family dimension)".[51]

Bias

Research is often biased in the languages that are preferred (linguicism) and the geographic locations where research occurs. Periphery scholars face the challenges of exclusion and linguicism in research and academic publication. As the great majority of mainstream academic journals are written in English, multilingual periphery scholars often must translate their work to be accepted to elite Western-dominated journals.[52] Multilingual scholars' influences from their native communicative styles can be assumed to be incompetence instead of difference.[53]

For comparative politics, Western countries are over-represented in single-country studies, with heavy emphasis on Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Since 2000, Latin American countries have become more popular in single-country studies. In contrast, countries in Oceania and the Caribbean are the focus of very few studies. Patterns of geographic bias also show a relationship with linguicism: countries whose official languages are French or Arabic are far less likely to be the focus of single-country studies than countries with different official languages. Within Africa, English-speaking countries are more represented than other countries.[54]

Generalizability

See also: External validity

Generalization is the process of more broadly applying the valid results of one study.[55] Studies with a narrow scope can result in a lack of generalizability, meaning that the results may not be applicable to other populations or regions. In comparative politics, this can result from using a single-country study, rather than a study design that uses data from multiple countries. Despite the issue of generalizability, single-country studies have risen in prevalence since the late 2000s.[54]

Publication peer review

Peer review is a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Usually, the peer review process involves experts in the same field who are consulted by editors to give a review of the scholarly works produced by a colleague of theirs from an unbiased and impartial point of view, and this is usually done free of charge. The tradition of peer reviews being done for free has however brought many pitfalls which are also indicative of why most peer reviewers decline many invitations to review.[56] It was observed that publications from periphery countries rarely rise to the same elite status as those of North America and Europe, because limitations on the availability of resources including high-quality paper and sophisticated image-rendering software and printing tools render these publications less able to satisfy standards currently carrying formal or informal authority in the publishing industry.[53] These limitations in turn result in the under-representation of scholars from periphery nations among the set of publications holding prestige status relative to the quantity and quality of those scholars' research efforts, and this under-representation in turn results in disproportionately reduced acceptance of the results of their efforts as contributions to the body of knowledge available worldwide.

Influence of the open-access movement

The open access movement assumes that all information generally deemed useful should be free and belongs to a "public domain", that of "humanity".[57] This idea gained prevalence as a result of Western colonial history and ignores alternative conceptions of knowledge circulation. For instance, most indigenous communities consider that access to certain information proper to the group should be determined by relationships.[57]

There is alleged to be a double standard in the Western knowledge system. On the one hand, "digital right management" used to restrict access to personal information on social networking platforms is celebrated as a protection of privacy, while simultaneously when similar functions are used by cultural groups (i.e. indigenous communities) this is denounced as "access control" and reprehended as censorship.[57]

Future perspectives

Even though Western dominance seems to be prominent in research, some scholars, such as Simon Marginson, argue for "the need [for] a plural university world".[58] Marginson argues that the East Asian Confucian model could take over the Western model.

This could be due to changes in funding for research both in the East and the West. Focused on emphasizing educational achievement, East Asian cultures, mainly in China and South Korea, have encouraged the increase of funding for research expansion.[58] In contrast, in the Western academic world, notably in the United Kingdom as well as in some state governments in the United States, funding cuts for university research have occurred, which some [who?] say may lead to the future decline of Western dominance in research.

Neo-colonial approaches

This section is an excerpt from Neo-colonial science.[edit]

Neo-colonial research or neo-colonial science,[59][60] frequently described as helicopter research,[59] parachute science[61][62] or research,[63] parasitic research,[64][65] or safari study,[66] is when researchers from wealthier countries go to a developing country, collect information, travel back to their country, analyze the data and samples, and publish the results with no or little involvement of local researchers. A 2003 study by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences found that 70% of articles in a random sample of publications about least-developed countries did not include a local research co-author.[60]

Frequently, during this kind of research, the local colleagues might be used to provide logistics support as fixers but are not engaged for their expertise or given credit for their participation in the research. Scientific publications resulting from parachute science frequently only contribute to the career of the scientists from rich countries, thus limiting the development of local science capacity (such as funded research centers) and the careers of local scientists.[59] This form of "colonial" science has reverberations of 19th century scientific practices of treating non-Western participants as "others" in order to advance colonialism—and critics call for the end of these extractivist practices in order to decolonize knowledge.[67][68]

This kind of research approach reduces the quality of research because international researchers may not ask the right questions or draw connections to local issues.[69] The result of this approach is that local communities are unable to leverage the research to their own advantage.[62] Ultimately, especially for fields dealing with global issues like conservation biology which rely on local communities to implement solutions, neo-colonial science prevents institutionalization of the findings in local communities in order to address issues being studied by scientists.[62][67]

Professionalisation

See also: Academic ranks, Academic staff, and Scientists
Further information: Research fellow, Research associate, and Research assistant

In several national and private academic systems, the professionalisation of research has resulted in formal job titles.

In Russia

In present-day Russia, and some other countries of the former Soviet Union, the term researcher (Russian: Научный сотрудник, nauchny sotrudnik) has been used both as a generic term for a person who has been carrying out scientific research, and as a job position within the frameworks of the Academy of Sciences, universities, and in other research-oriented establishments.

The following ranks are known:

  • Junior Researcher (Junior Research Associate)
  • Researcher (Research Associate)
  • Senior Researcher (Senior Research Associate)
  • Leading Researcher (Leading Research Associate)[70]
  • Chief Researcher (Chief Research Associate)

Publishing

Cover of the first issue of Nature, 4 November 1869

Academic publishing is a system that is necessary for academic scholars to peer review the work and make it available for a wider audience. The system varies widely by field and is also always changing, if often slowly. Most academic work is published in journal article or book form. There is also a large body of research that exists in either a thesis or dissertation form. These forms of research can be found in databases explicitly for theses and dissertations. In publishing, STM publishing is an abbreviation for academic publications in science, technology, and medicine. Most established academic fields have their own scientific journals and other outlets for publication, though many academic journals are somewhat interdisciplinary, and publish work from several distinct fields or subfields. The kinds of publications that are accepted as contributions of knowledge or research vary greatly between fields, from the print to the electronic format. A study suggests that researchers should not give great consideration to findings that are not replicated frequently.[71] It has also been suggested that all published studies should be subjected to some measure for assessing the validity or reliability of its procedures to prevent the publication of unproven findings.[72] Business models are different in the electronic environment. Since about the early 1990s, licensing of electronic resources, particularly journals, has been very common. Presently, a major trend, particularly with respect to scholarly journals, is open access.[73] There are two main forms of open access: open access publishing, in which the articles or the whole journal is freely available from the time of publication, and self-archiving, where the author makes a copy of their own work freely available on the web.

Research statistics and funding

Main article: Research funding

Most funding for scientific research comes from three major sources: corporate research and development departments; private foundations; and government research councils such as the National Institutes of Health in the US[74] and the Medical Research Council in the UK. These are managed primarily through universities and in some cases through military contractors. Many senior researchers (such as group leaders) spend a significant amount of their time applying for grants for research funds. These grants are necessary not only for researchers to carry out their research but also as a source of merit. The Social Psychology Network provides a comprehensive list of U.S. Government and private foundation funding sources.

The total number of researchers (full-time equivalents) per million inhabitants for individual countries is shown in the following table.

Country researchers (full-time equivalents) per million inhabitants 2018[75]
 Algeria 819
 Argentina 1192
 Austria 5733
 Belgium 5023
 Bulgaria 2343
 Canada 4326
 Chile 493
 China 1307
 Costa Rica 380
 Croatia 1921
 Cyprus 1256
 Czechia 3863
 Denmark 8066
 Egypt 687
 Estonia 3755
 Finland 6861
 France 4715
 Georgia 1464
 Germany 5212
 Greece 3483
 Hungary 3238
 Iceland 6131
 India 253
 Indonesia 216
 Iran 1475
 Ireland 5243
 Israel 2307
 Italy 2307
 Japan 5331
 Jordan 596
 Kazakhstan 667
 Kuwait 514
 Latvia 1792
 Lithuania 3191
 Luxembourg 4942
 Malaysia 2397
 Malta 1947
 Mauritius 474
 Mexico 315
 Moldova 696
 Montenegro 734
 Morocco 1074
 Netherlands 5605
 New Zealand 5530
 North Macedonia 799
 Norway 6467
 Pakistan 336
 Poland 3106
 Portugal 4538
 Romania 882
 Russia 2784
 Serbia 2087
 Singapore 6803
 Slovakia 2996
 Slovenia 4855
 South Africa 518
 South Korea 7980
 Spain 3001
 Sweden 7536
 Switzerland 5450
 Thailand 1350
 Tunisia 1772
 Turkey 1379
 Ukraine 988
 United Arab Emirates 2379
 United Kingdom 4603
 United States of America 4412
 Uruguay 696
 Vietnam 708

Research expenditure by type of research as a share of GDP for individual countries is shown in the following table.

Country Research expenditure as a share of GDP by type of research (%), 2018[76]
Basic Applied Development
 Algeria 0.01 0.27 0.02
 Argentina 0.14 0.27 0.12
 Austria 0.54 1.00 1.46
 Belgium 0.30 1.24 1.16
 Bulgaria 0.08 0.47 0.20
 Chile 0.10 0.14 0.08
 China 0.12 0.24 1.82
 Costa Rica 0.10 0.07 0.02
 Croatia 0.33 0.28 0.25
 Cyprus 0.08 0.30 0.18
 Czechia 0.50 0.77 0.66
 Denmark 0.56 0.95 1.54
 Estonia 0.35 0.28 0.66
 France 0.50 0.92 0.78
 Greece 0.35 0.37 0.41
 Hungary 0.26 0.30 0.78
 Iceland 0.43 0.95 0.66
 India 0.10 0.15 0.13
 Ireland 0.22 0.42 0.55
 Italy 0.31 0.58 0.49
 Israel 0.52 0.51 3.93
 Japan 0.41 0.62 2.10
 Kazakhstan 0.02 0.07 0.03
 Kuwait 0.00 0.06 0.00
 Latvia 0.16 0.22 0.13
 Lithuania 0.24 0.38 0.28
 Luxembourg 0.48 0.49 0.33
 Malaysia 0.42 0.81 0.21
 Malta 0.30 0.19 0.09
 Mauritius 0.03 0.12 0.02
 Mexico 0.10 0.09 0.12
 Montenegro 0.10 0.21 0.04
 Netherlands 0.52 0.87 0.60
 New Zealand 0.34 0.55 0.48
 North Macedonia 0.09 0.23 0.05
 Norway 0.38 0.79 0.93
 Poland 0.30 0.18 0.55
 Portugal 0.29 0.51 0.53
 Romania 0.10 0.31 0.09
 Russia 0.15 0.21 0.65
 Serbia 0.29 0.34 0.29
 Singapore 0.46 0.61 0.87
 Slovakia 0.33 0.20 0.30
 Slovenia 0.33 0.82 0.71
 South Africa 0.22 0.44 0.17
 South Korea 0.68 1.06 3.07
 Spain 0.26 0.50 0.45
 Switzerland 1.41 1.09 0.88
 Thailand 0.10 0.27 0.64
 Ukraine 0.11 0.10 0.27
 United Kingdom 0.30 0.74 0.64
 United States of America 0.47 0.56 1.80
 Vietnam 0.07 0.30 0.04

See also

References

  1. ^ OECD (2015). Frascati Manual. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. doi:10.1787/9789264239012-en. hdl:20.500.12749/13290. ISBN 978-9264238800. Archived from the original on 5 June 2020. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  2. ^ "Researcher". Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved 13 October 2024.
  3. ^ Sha, Mandy (14 May 2019). "Professional Association and Pathways to Leadership in Our Profession". Survey Practice. 12 (1): 1–6. doi:10.29115/SP-2018-0039.
  4. ^ "The Origins of Science Archived 3 March 2003 at the Wayback Machine". Scientific American Frontiers.
  5. ^ a b c "Research". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on 18 October 2018. Retrieved 20 May 2018.
  6. ^ Grover, Vijey (2015). "RESEARCH APPROACH: AN OVERVIEW". Golden Research Thoughts. 4.
  7. ^ Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.[ISBN missing][page needed]
  8. ^ "What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source". Thomas G. Carpenter Library, University of North Florida. Archived from the original on 9 July 2011. Retrieved 9 August 2014.
  9. ^ Rozakis, Laurie (2007). Schaum's Quick Guide to Writing Great Research Papers. McGraw Hill Professional. ISBN 978-0071511223 – via Google Books.
  10. ^ Singh, Michael; Li, Bingyi (6 October 2009). "Early career researcher originality: Engaging Richard Florida's international competition for creative workers" (PDF). Centre for Educational Research, University of Western Sydney. p. 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 April 2011. Retrieved 12 January 2012.
  11. ^ Callaham, Michael; Wears, Robert; Weber, Ellen L. (2002). "Journal Prestige, Publication Bias, and Other Characteristics Associated With Citation of Published Studies in Peer-Reviewed Journals". JAMA. 287 (21): 2847–50. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2847. PMID 12038930.
  12. ^ US Department of Labor (2006). Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006–2007 edition. Mcgraw-hill. ISBN 978-0071472883 – via Google Books.
  13. ^ Roffee, James A; Waling, Andrea (18 August 2016). "Resolving ethical challenges when researching with minority and vulnerable populations: LGBTIQ victims of violence, harassment and bullying". Research Ethics. 13 (1): 4–22. doi:10.1177/1747016116658693.
  14. ^ Lesage, Dieter (Spring 2009). "Who's Afraid of Artistic Research? On measuring artistic research output" (PDF). Art & Research. 2 (2). ISSN 1752-6388. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 October 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  15. ^ Eisner, E. W. (1981). "On the Differences between Scientific and Artistic Approaches to Qualitative Research". Educational Researcher. 10 (4): 5–9. JSTOR 1175121.
  16. ^ Unattributed. "Artistic research at DOCH". Dans och Cirkushögskolan (website). Archived from the original on 5 November 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  17. ^ Schwab, M. (2009). "Draft Proposal". Journal for Artistic Research. Bern University of the Arts.
  18. ^ Julian Klein (2010). "What is artistic research?". Archived from the original on 13 May 2021. Retrieved 15 June 2021.
  19. ^ Schiesser, G. (2015). What is at stake – Qu'est ce que l'enjeu? Paradoxes – Problematics – Perspectives in Artistic Research Today, in: Arts, Research, Innovation and Society. Eds. Gerald Bast, Elias G. Carayannis [= ARIS, Vol. 1]. Wien/New York: Springer. pp. 197–210.
  20. ^ Topal, H. (2014). "Whose Terms? A Glossary for Social Practice: Research". newmuseum.org. Archived from the original on 9 September 2014.
  21. ^ Hoffman, A. (2003). Research for Writers, pp. 4–5. London: A&C Black Publishers Limited.
  22. ^ "Swiss Science and Technology Research Council (2011), Research Funding in the Arts" (PDF).[permanent dead link]
  23. ^ Henk Borgdorff (2012), The Conflict of the Faculties. Perspectives on Artistic Research and Academia (Chapter 11: The Case of the Journal for Artistic Research), Leiden: Leiden University Press.
  24. ^ Schwab, Michael, and Borgdorff, Henk, eds. (2014), The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia, Leiden: Leiden University Press.
  25. ^ Wilson, Nick and van Ruiten, Schelte / ELIA, eds. (2013), SHARE Handbook for Artistic Research Education, Amsterdam: Valand Academy, p. 249.
  26. ^ Hughes, Rolf: "Leap into Another Kind: International Developments in Artistic Research", in Swedish Research Council, ed. (2013), Artistic Research Then and Now: 2004–2013, Yearbook of AR&D 2013, Stockholm: Swedish Research Council.
  27. ^ Leavy, Patricia (2015). Methods Meets Art (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. ISBN 978-1462519446.
  28. ^ Rahmat, Omarkhil. "Florence principles, 2016" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 December 2016. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
  29. ^ Garraghan, Gilbert J. (1946). A Guide to Historical Method. New York: Fordham University Press. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-8371-7132-6.
  30. ^ Trochim, W.M.K, (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base.
  31. ^ Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 2008 ISBN 0-13-613550-1 (pages 8–9)
  32. ^ Shields, Patricia M.; Rangarjan, N. (2013). A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. ISBN 9781581072471.[permanent dead link]
  33. ^ Gauch, Jr., H.G. (2003). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2003 ISBN 0-521-81689-0 (page 3)
  34. ^ Rocco, T.S., Hatcher, T., & Creswell, J.W. (2011). The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. 2011 ISBN 978-0-470-39335-2
  35. ^ "QUESTIONS ABOUT FREEDOM, DEMOCIDE, AND WAR". www.hawaii.edu. Archived from the original on 4 January 2012. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
  36. ^ Plato, & Bluck, R. S. (1962). Meno. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
  37. ^ Sullivan P (13 April 2005). "Maurice R. Hilleman dies; created vaccines". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 20 October 2012. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  38. ^ Pawar, Neelam (December 2020). "6. Type of Research and Type Research Design". Research Methodology: An Overview. Vol. 15. KD Publications. pp. 46–57. ISBN 978-81-948755-8-1.
  39. ^ Sha, Mandy; Childs, Jennifer Hunter (1 August 2014). "Applying a project management approach to survey research projects that use qualitative methods". Survey Practice. 7 (4): 1–8. doi:10.29115/SP-2014-0021. Archived from the original on 25 November 2023. Retrieved 3 December 2023.
  40. ^ Sha, Mandy; Pan, Yuling (1 December 2013). "Adapting and Improving Methods to Manage Cognitive Pretesting of Multilingual Survey Instruments". Survey Practice. 6 (4): 1–8. doi:10.29115/SP-2013-0024.
  41. ^ Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  42. ^ a b c Eyler, Amy A. (2020). Research Methods for Public Health. New York: Springer Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8261-8206-7. OCLC 1202451096.
  43. ^ "Data Collection Methods". uwec.edu. Archived from the original on 20 October 2011. Retrieved 26 October 2011.
  44. ^ Kara H. (2012). Research and Evaluation for Busy Practitioners: A Time-Saving Guide, p. 102. Bristol: The Policy Press.
  45. ^ Kara H (2012). Research and Evaluation for Busy Practitioners: A Time-Saving Guide, p. 114. Bristol: The Policy Press.
  46. ^ Creswell, John W. (2014). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. ISBN 978-1-4522-2609-5. Archived from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 11 December 2018.
  47. ^ Liu, Alex (2015). "Structural Equation Modeling and Latent Variable Approaches". Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 1–15. doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0325. ISBN 978-1118900772.
  48. ^ Ioannidis, John P. A.; Fanelli, Daniele; Dunne, Debbie Drake; Goodman, Steven N. (2 October 2015). "Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices". PLOS Biology. 13 (10): –1002264. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 4592065. PMID 26431313.
  49. ^ Reverby, Susan M. (1 April 2012). "Zachary M. Schrag. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2010. Pp. xii, 245. $45.00". The American Historical Review. 117 (2): 484–485. doi:10.1086/ahr.117.2.484-a. ISSN 0002-8762.
  50. ^ Smith, Linda Tuhiwai (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1848139503. Archived from the original on 25 October 2018. Retrieved 24 October 2018.
  51. ^ Stewart, Lisa (2012). "Commentary on Cultural Diversity Across the Pacific: The Dominance of Western Theories, Models, Research and Practice in Psychology". Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology. 6 (1): 27–31. doi:10.1017/prp.2012.1.
  52. ^ Canagarajah, A. Suresh (1 January 1996). "From Critical Research Practice to Critical Research Reporting". TESOL Quarterly. 30 (2): 321–331. doi:10.2307/3588146. JSTOR 3588146.
  53. ^ a b Canagarajah, Suresh (October 1996). "'Nondiscursive' Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production". Written Communication. 13 (4): 435–472. doi:10.1177/0741088396013004001. S2CID 145250687.
  54. ^ a b Pepinsky, Thomas B. (2019). "The Return of the Single-Country Study". Annual Review of Political Science. 22: 187–203. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-113314.
  55. ^ Kukull, W. A.; Ganguli, M. (2012). "Generalizability: The trees, the forest, and the low-hanging fruit". Neurology. 78 (23): 1886–1891. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f812. PMC 3369519. PMID 22665145.
  56. ^ "Peer Review of Scholarly Journal". www.PeerViewer.com. June 2017. Archived from the original on 30 July 2017. Retrieved 29 July 2017.
  57. ^ a b c Christen, Kimberly (2012). "Does Information Really Want to be Free? Indigenous Knowledge Systems and the Question of Openness". International Journal of Communication. 6. Archived from the original on 15 July 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
  58. ^ a b "Sun sets on Western dominance as East Asian Confucian model takes lead". 24 February 2011. Archived from the original on 20 September 2016. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
  59. ^ a b c Minasny, Budiman; Fiantis, Dian; Mulyanto, Budi; Sulaeman, Yiyi; Widyatmanti, Wirastuti (15 August 2020). "Global soil science research collaboration in the 21st century: Time to end helicopter research". Geoderma. 373: 114299. Bibcode:2020Geode.373k4299M. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114299. ISSN 0016-7061.
  60. ^ a b Dahdouh-Guebas, Farid; Ahimbisibwe, J.; Van Moll, Rita; Koedam, Nico (1 March 2003). "Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing". Scientometrics. 56 (3): 329–343. doi:10.1023/A:1022374703178. ISSN 1588-2861. S2CID 18463459.
  61. ^ "Q&A: Parachute Science in Coral Reef Research". The Scientist Magazine®. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
  62. ^ a b c "The Problem With 'Parachute Science'". Science Friday. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
  63. ^ "Scientists Say It's Time To End 'Parachute Research'". NPR.org. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
  64. ^ Health, The Lancet Global (1 June 2018). "Closing the door on parachutes and parasites". The Lancet Global Health. 6 (6): e593. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30239-0. ISSN 2214-109X. PMID 29773111. S2CID 21725769.
  65. ^ Smith, James (1 August 2018). "Parasitic and parachute research in global health". The Lancet Global Health. 6 (8): e838. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30315-2. ISSN 2214-109X. PMID 30012263. S2CID 51630341.
  66. ^ "Helicopter Research". TheFreeDictionary.com. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
  67. ^ a b Vos, Asha de. "The Problem of 'Colonial Science'". Scientific American. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
  68. ^ "The Traces of Colonialism in Science". Observatory of Educational Innovation. 20 July 2020. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
  69. ^ Stefanoudis, Paris V.; Licuanan, Wilfredo Y.; Morrison, Tiffany H.; Talma, Sheena; Veitayaki, Joeli; Woodall, Lucy C. (22 February 2021). "Turning the tide of parachute science". Current Biology. 31 (4): R184–R185. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.029. ISSN 0960-9822. PMID 33621503.
  70. ^ "Ведущий научный сотрудник: должностные обязанности". www.aup.ru. Archived from the original on 1 April 2010. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
  71. ^ Heiner Evanschitzky, Carsten Baumgarth, Raymond Hubbard and J. Scott Armstrong (2006). "Replication Research in Marketing Revisited: A Note on a Disturbing Trend" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 June 2010. Retrieved 10 January 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  72. ^ J. Scott Armstrong & Peer Soelberg (1968). "On the Interpretation of Factor Analysis" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 70 (5): 361–364. doi:10.1037/h0026434. S2CID 25687243. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 June 2010. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
  73. ^ J. Scott Armstrong & Robert Fildes (2006). "Monetary Incentives in Mail Surveys" (PDF). International Journal of Forecasting. 22 (3): 433–441. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2006.04.007. S2CID 154398140. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 June 2010. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
  74. ^ "Home | RePORT". report.nih.gov. Archived from the original on 21 May 2021. Retrieved 22 May 2021.
  75. ^ Research input and output worldwide, various years since 2014, Statistical Annex, by country, Table C2: Total researchers and researchers per million inhabitants, 2015 and 2018
  76. ^ Research input and output worldwide, various years since 2014, Statistical Annex, by country, Table B1: Research expenditure as a share of GDP and in purchasing power parity dollars (PPP$), 2015–2018, year 2018

Further reading

  • Groh, Arnold (2018). Research Methods in Indigenous Contexts. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-72774-5.
  • Cohen, N.; Arieli, T. (2011). "Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling". Journal of Peace Research. 48 (4): 423–436. doi:10.1177/0022343311405698. S2CID 145328311.
  • Soeters, Joseph; Shields, Patricia and Rietjens, Sebastiaan. 2014. Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies New York: Routledge.
  • Talja, Sanna and Pamela J. Mckenzie (2007). Editor's Introduction: Special Issue on Discursive Approaches to Information Seeking in Context, The University of Chicago Press.
Wikiversity has learning resources about Research
Library resources about
Research
  • The dictionary definition of research at Wiktionary
  • Quotations related to Research at Wikiquote
  • Media related to Research at Wikimedia Commons