You have presented a very agreeable model of the research cycle, in cultural terms of human intellectual freedom! However, academic over-specialization is a professional function of (over-)competition for a very limited number of research jobs in science (functioning as spearhead and producer), i.e. scientific methodology is subordinated to the full economization of research to reach supremacy in global markets, and if necessary, on the battlefields.

Collection of Research papers , article , from the old age to modern is my hobby and always I try to read and store those. I found some of the old papers, where are very easy to understand and almost all are the seniors who have written or developed those. Some of them are noble laureates where in case of modern time the papers are difficult and the analysis parts are abstruse!

I think abstractionism is some failure of the researchers. It should be easy going always.

Thanks

You have presented a very agreeable model of the research cycle, in cultural terms of human intellectual freedom! However, academic over-specialization is a professional function of (over-)competition for a very limited number of research jobs in science (functioning as spearhead and producer), i.e. scientific methodology is subordinated to the full economization of research to reach supremacy in global markets, and if necessary, on the battlefields.

Stephen I. Ternyik ,

I think its the best answer with proof and its a great learning for me . Thanks dear Sir.

I agree with you, Dr. Md Zafar AlamBhuiyan but they should be clear and straightforward to ensure the goals they are set for. One of the main goals of any paper is to be comprehensible and useful by a large number of readers.

Hazim Al Dilaimy ,

Denitely dear Professor, you correctly said 'they should be clear and straightforward to ensure the goals they are set for. One of the main goals of any paper is to be comprehensible and useful by a large number of readers. '

Dear Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan

You have presented a very good basic research model - however I miss the role of intuition and inspiration in it. Without those we are only working within a paradigm, not initiating new and really novel research.

Warm regards - tina

Thank you for asking that question, when I was writing my thesis, my supervisor told me after reading my written work; Nazia, it is not story telling, it is research work, you can not write this, you can not write that. I thought, why, it is not story telling, why it is so boring (sorry for this word, boring) ,the whole research process was an interesting story like, but through scientific writing, it changed into some dead thing, see my thesis. I totally agree with you, research writing should be simple, easy to understand and real life like. It must not feel like from, some other lifeless planet.

Dear Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan

I am also posting another aspect which for me needs to be included for your model to be more complete. And that is

what ethical implinations does my research have, and is it in the highest interest of all living being?

I know that is not included by scientists today but I would like it to be.

Warm regards Tina

Dr Nazia, yes its a good saying , Its true , Research is a kind of storytelling:

I thought, why, it is not story telling, why it is so boring (sorry for this word, boring) ,the whole research process was an interesting story like, but through scientific writing, it changed into some dead thing, see my thesis. I totally agree with you, research writing should be simple, easy to understand and real life like. It must not feel like from, some other lifeless planet. '----Good

Thanks

Tina Lindhard ,

Thanks Profess Dr Tina, let we wait for the answers of the other scientists.

Regards

When I started studying physics and approaching the research world about 40 years ago the computers (the personal computers did not exist yet) did not communicate with each other even though Arpanet network already existed only for military purposes. Arpanet was designed for US military purposes during the Cold War, but paradoxically one of the largest civil projects was born: a global network that connects the whole Earth (INTERNET). It is now clear to everyone that more interconnected computers offer great and many more possibilities than even a alone very powerful computer. Although absolutely utopian, I believe that research must work for the peace and well-being of the people of Earth and the environment in which this people live. Because there is only one human race and therefore only one people and we have, for the moment, only one Earth. Although absolutely utopian, I believe that research must work for the peace and well-being of the people of Earth and the environment in which this people live. Because a series of interconnected computers become more powerful than the sum of each of them, even researchers who cooperate and exchange information and results become much more powerful than the sum of the single researcher. For these reasons I believe that research must be free, shared, transparent and public. Naturally every researcher has and can continue to have his secrets but the results of the research must be for the benefit of all humanity. So I think Md Zafar's scheme is almost perfect.

Dr Leonardo,

Thanks for you detailed answer.Exactly I think you corectly said.

Thanks

Agree.

Yes, I am agree.

Research writing should be simple, succinct and understandable so that someone else can follow the report and try to duplicate the work or extend it. A research paper is not Hollywood material that appeals to the masses with very little content. The research work is your own and although standards of writing may vary depending on the field, you have the full freedom to write it as you see fit so that what you want to convey is clear to the audience.

Seriously there is no credit rather a great failure of the scientists if the audience do not understand his research due to bombadting and abstruse language.Its like audience where a person from mars is describing the thing in an unknown language.

So it depends on the audience. There are things that I write that are directed at a very small group of scholars who do work that is related to mine. I can use technical language and present a complex argument to that audience. Other things I write are intended for a broader audience of scholars; one must tone down the technical language for a larger audience. And then there are things I write for a non-scholarly audience. That requires a different approach. In each case, however, I think there is value in keeping the writing and the argument clear, concise, and as readable as possible.

Dear Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan

The subject of the research, its process, methodology and analysis, should have adequate standards to facilitate its understanding and application; However, this is easier to say at the level of scientific disclosure than in the training of researchers.

As for budding researchers, they should have a deep and critical technical and methodological training, with support from mathematics, applied statistics and critical reading of scientific texts.

Regards

José Luis

I follow answers

best regards

Agree! Following!!!

In response to José Luis, I don't think qualitative researchers necessarily have to have support or knowledge of mathematics. However, I do think that everyone should have basic understanding of statistics, if only to be able to read and interpret what is going on in social science works that make use of statistical methodologies. As an ethnographer, I don't have a great deal of need for mathematics in data collection, but I do find that understanding papers with statistics is helpful and I also have done some work that involves basic statistical analysis.

One more thought from me on this. I do really appreciate the work of colleagues who try to write in a way that includes scholars working in other fields. It allows for cross-fertilization of ideas. Several years ago, I walked into a panel at the Association for Asian Studies meetings that was on early modern Japan. I am an anthropologist, not a historian, so I would expect that there would be areas that would be a bit opaque to me. However, I am also a specialist in Japanese culture and society, so it would make sense that I'd be interested the topic and be able to connect. I basically didn't understand anything that was being said. There was so much jargon that it was impenetrable for anyone other than a tiny group of people (probably just the ones on the panel and a few others in the room). I finally gave up and left, along with quite a few other people. In my view, it is not good scholarship when the language one uses is technical to the point that people with a common interest (in this case Japan) can't follow what is going on.

John Traphagan ,

Dear Thanks a lot and I am very amused hearing from your side.

thanks

On the one hand - I agree with you, the topic and analysis should be as simple, obvious and clear. It's safer. And easier.

But on the other hand - after all, when we break out of thought patterns, when we propose something different, when we go a completely different, unobvious way - the results of our research can be crucial and important for the progress of mankind.

Dear, Md Zafar Alam.. I agree with you that research topic , process and analysis should be standard and clear.

Best regards.