James Clerk Maxwell said that? Where? When?

There is no dilemma. Researchers typically have to develop or adapt existing methods to get their results. Researchers are happy if their results are used or their methods. 

• A research result is valuable because it can be developed for the use of humankind.
• A new research method is valuable because it can be used as the basis for discovering even newer methods. 

Which is more valuable: a fish or a fishing rod?

Dear Len!

Like Jan Kennedy, I see no dilemma between to learn how to research and to research for learning something. Suffice it to say that when one learns how to research one is learning something (e.g.,  how to research) and when we research for leaning something we are performing already a research. 

As I see it, the best way to learn how to research is to conduct one or several researches. You cannot learn how to research by only reading books or papers on how to research. It is often the case that when one begins to research, one is generally supervised by, say, a senior researcher. Note, for example, that Master or Ph D dissertations are always supervised by an expert adviser.  

To conduct a research generally implies the following:

1. To establish the main goals to be attained through the investigation at hand. The more the attainment of the intended goals is considered to be valuable for humankind, the better the goals are. As I see it, a researcher's ultimate goal is to know at least part of the unknown.   

2. To raise good research questions one wants to be answered through the  respective research. Good research questions are, for example, those I call "irritating questions", that is, new questions whose response leads us to a better understanding of the topic at hand, and even to the understanding of the unknown.  

3. To make predictions/advance hypotheses/propose theories to be confirmed or falsified. As you know, contrary to a metaphysical statement (e.g., tomorrow it can rain or it cannot  rain; If we say this, then we will be right regardless of it rains or it doesn't rain) or a proposition that is true by definition (e.g., Piagetian formal operational thought appears only after Piagetian concrete operational thought; this has to be true, because formal operations are operations upon concrete operations. Therefore, it has not to be tested or experimented ), a scientific prediction/hypothesis/theory (e.g., older children share more and more generously than younger children) is only so when it can be falsified. If this were not the case, then we would have dogmas instead of scientific propositions, theses, theories, and the like.

4. To follow a quantitative or/and qualitative method or methods to test our predictions, hypotheses and theories. As I see no radical opposition between qualitative and quantitative methods, the best ones are those that are not biased, such that our predictions, hypotheses, or theories can be falsified if they were not true. In your question, you speak of some new research methods that may become a real treasure. Which methods are you thinking about?

5. To get data, analyze them in quantitative or/and qualitative terms, and then to discuss them having in mind the goals, questions and hypotheses mentioned  previously.

These steps are the usual steps followed by the majority of researchers in experimental sciences, such as physics, biology, psychology, etc.

I know of well-known researchers (e.g., Jean Piaget) in my area of expertize, developmental psychology, who stated that for one to perform good research one  has to have, say, a "conceptual enemy". Mine, Piaget went on is logical positivism [see Bringuier, J. (1980). Conversations with Jean Piaget. Chicago. University of  Chicago Press]. I see this Piagetian caveat as an indication that no research is good scientific research if it is not theoretically grounded.

Needless to say, when one performs research one wants to learn and even to find something interesting and new. Again, the dilemma contained in your question is no dilemma at all. Fortunately!

Best regards,

Dear Ian and Orlando,

Thanks so lot for sharing your valuable and wise opinions. I absolutely agree with you that new research results and research methods are both valuable and there is no dilemma between them.

My question is rather about possible dilemma on a personal level, as well as the level of planning, organizing, and managing various resources allocated for research requiring a substantial time and investment in developing new scientific / technological infrastructures. I briefly mentioned the latter in clarifying my initial question. Along with academia / universities, there are other research organizations in industries, government agencies, etc. that undertake quite high cost and long term projects having partially scientific and partially technological, engineering, and other research interests.

Young researchers interested in a purely scientific research environment and career, if well understood and informed about implications of getting involved into such projects and organizations, may think twice, before getting involved. Whereas, researchers looking for more practical, application product development, rather service engineering and business oriented research may prefer this particular career path.

As a young engineer-physicist I got my first job with an electronics design bureau and I was horrified by how far it was from physics. Then, after a year there, I got employed by one of the best academic institute of physics and spent seventeen years there enjoying every moment of it. Nevertheless, first four years I was basically helping the team to establish a new department of radiation processes in semiconductors (studying the nature and properties of radiation defects in basic microelectronics materials) from building the walls to cleaning electron accelerators and gamma ray facilities. I had endured all of that and many more, because it was about physics that I so wanted to be a part of.

 However, some of my young colleagues were quite disappointed and decided to look for other opportunities. That is a personal level dilemma I am talking about. It became known later that some of the reasons it took so long to establish that department were a lack of resources, bureaucracy, and bad logistics / planning of the resources, time and skills required – that is another aspect of the dilemma that I am trying to outline. Sorry, if due to no experience in setting the RG questions yet, I made it difficult to understand.

Both things are possible. Learn to research and research to learn.

Dear Professor Doko, Dr. Espejo, and Dr. Srinivasarao,

Thanks for your contributions.

Dear Alimjan,

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I would appreciate if you could elaborate a bit with an example/s on “… research to learn  something new before we know theresults …” and “… we would be doing research  to learn  how to do a research.”

Do you mean we learn, for example, by accident or through the initial search - there is a new interesting phenomenon or discovery that isn’t studied yet into considerable details? And then, we would be researching new methods to learn as to how to research this discovery or phenomenon?

Research methodology can be taught through the research process. Of course, students need an introduction to the process but they will incorporate the process much better if they use it as they experiment or delve into information on a topic.

Dear Nora,

Thanks for contributing. I think, it is certainly a good educational idea.

To learn how to research, or to research for learning something?

Think both "Learn how to research" & "Research for learning something" are equally important & dependent on each other.  Because "Learn how to research" is focusing on the how or sometimes it is being referred as an enabler to conduct research.  Whereas "Research for learning something" is focusing on what or what is the research outcomes / end results.  Finding both are contributing to knowledge sharing.  Without using the correct research method, the research outcomes are meaningless.  But merely focusing on the research method, it can't practically help researchers to solve actual problems / discover new knowledge etc.

Dear Dr. Han Ping Fung,

Indeed, learning / developing research methods and obtaining eventual research results are both important. This balance comes with skills and experience.  Sometimes, younger researchers underestimate time, effort, and the level of continues support required to get through the first stage.

Thanks for contributing, it is appreciated.

Learn how to research is better, the first thing is to put in order our thinking.

Dear Dr. Mariano Ruiz Espejo,

This is an important and fresh note to consider.

Thanks a lot for your valuable contribution.

I think that the ultimate goal is to research for finding new knowledge (to learn something). New knowledge is the objective of humans, because it increases our possibilities and awareness of the state of the world.

But in order to prepare researchers, we need to teach them. They need to learn how to research. This objective is also important, but I think that less than the first. If we will learn more than research, the efficiency of our research becomes lower. To put analogy from physics, we have a machine that spends more energy than produces something useful.

Dear Dr. Yuri Yegorov,

Thanks for your valuable opinion. Indeed, future research students should be taught both - how to research and learning new knowledge with a tilt towards the latter. Once employed, they should be well advised and informed on that particular field of science or engineering they entered as to whether they are going to work for years on developing new or upgrading existing methods/methodologies, or applying existing ones to gain new knowledge. The timeline balance and clarity are very important for young researchers at the beginning of their careers.

@Ian Kennedy: "James Clerk Maxwell said that? Where? When?"

Dear Dr. Ian Kennedy,

In my question, I referred to Maxwell, when recalling the following: "Maxwell, for example, said that a method is more important than result." I couldn't recall the source - the physics book I got it from, but I clearly remembered the essence of the quote. Recently, I encountered the following quote by Lev Landau:

_____

http://www.azquotes.com/author/44370-Lev_Landau

A method is more important than a discovery, since the right method will lead to new and even more important discoveries.

- Lev Landau

_____

It makes me believe that most likely I made a mistake pointing to Maxwell instead of Landau. My apology.

Thanks for your note about Maxwell. Many months I was returning back to this note trying to recall the author, until I eventually found this exact quote by Lev Landau.

Len Mizrah

Learn to research and research to learn occurs simultaneously.

Very imortant question!

interesting question ....... following.

Follow

follow

follow

Dear Len Leonid Mizrah

Interesting question since without asking I was always some time investigating to learn and in others, learning to investigate; practically simultaneously. With both you learn and they are complementary.

However, by focusing more on the subject in the learning process, it is true that documentary research conducted individually and in teams, is one of the preferred teaching methods to achieve significant learning; because with time and with practice, you learn the method that in some investigations, is more important than the same results.

Learning the method makes meaningful learning feasible according to the postulates of UNESCO. It reinforces in a consistent way the Learning to Learn and Learn for life. In other terms: Learn to Know, Learn to Do and finally Learn to Be.

regards Jose Luis

@Sajda Taha Mahmood

Dear Prof. Sajda Taha Mahmood,

You are right, every researcher has personal (subjective) reasons to do a research job. Once the decision is made, the objective goal for any researcher is to gain scientific knowledge.

Here is a trap, some research jobs, especially in a high tech team environment do not require much time to get acquainted with existing equipment, methodologies, techniques - that is everything is more or less ready to start the actual research.

However, there are cases when a research team has to install new equipment, develop new methodologies, test and calibrate all of that, build from scratch the entire infrastructure - it take a long time and requires a researcher to be motivated to do so.

Sometimes young people do not know what they are signing for. So that it becomes a painful problem later, and some people frustrated with this situation have to look for another job. The other people may be perfectly happy and pleased to continue that activity. Again, it depends on people's personal reasons to do this job, Hence, some ones are happy to learn how to research and ready to wait, whereas other ones would like to jump into actual research right away.

@José Luis García Vigil

Dear Prof. José Luis García Vigil,

Medicine more than any other field of knowledge requires preliminary thorough learning a lot about a human, diagnostics, and the actual treatment even without high tech. That is, acquiring a prior knowledge, methodology, and technique being used, and then getting certified for all of that - it's hell of a time.

A certified doctor would like to focus on healing patients, that is apply one's knowledge for the actual work. If you take physics or engineering, in many cases a certified engineer-physicist, depends on a number of random factors can turned out to be in a situation of developing a new lab/department/ research methodologies and equipment from scratch spending quite significant time on that.

If someone was looking for a job like that - it's his lucky time. However, many planned to come to an already established lab / department and to do purely research/development job. Here is the alternative, that sometimes is very unexpected for young specialists, who dream for getting a job, and only later figuring out the essence of their new position.

Other than that, your experience and approach in learn to know, learn to do, and learn to be is absolutely appropriate. Sometimes, it can be done concurrently. Another time, you may have pieces to be worked out over an extended time, and then you go step by step. It depends on specifics, and situation as a whole.

In my opinion, the factors that intervene in making such an important decision in the life of an individual, such as the selection of a profession, are very varied and are not related only to the incapacity, sometimes, of the young person , to decide on one or another profession, but nowadays society plays an important role and the challenges that it imposes on new generations, especially in those aspects to which, in the economic order, it refers to form influences decisively the family who in many of the cases interferes in the decision making achieving so that the young person chooses the profession that they want perhaps, for what they wanted to be and could not or pretending that their son or daughter studied the best career , to your liking, but that does not necessarily have to match the tastes of the child or family member and it is then, where the abandonment or failure in the studies takes place afterwards, therefore, these are some s of the factors that I consider influence this decision, may be others, but to my consideration, these are very important and decisive.

Dear Adalberto Portal Camellón,

I had very limited resources when getting my college education, and perfectly understand what economic necessities are all about. Your family may, or may not be right. If the family is financially well off, try to convince them. Otherwise, either subdued, or postpone your desired education, until you get some financial independence.

My feeling is that every time you research something,even if that means only reading someone else’s work,that you have an opportunity to learn something.

Learning how to undertake research is another matter....learning the methods and discipline required for each subject and process.

Both are sides of the same coin.

Dear Ian,

Learning methods and BUILDING methods are two very different things as time and efforts are concerned. If you need to spend several years to BUILD something, that side of the coin may look to you quite different.

You generally undertake some training; learning about things on a holistic perspective to later research into specifics. And when you do research and find results, positive or negative, you learn something to add or improve your original holistic knowledge. So, you learn to research and research to learn

@Maurice Ekpenyong

Dear Dr. Maurice Ekpenyong,

When you say "... to later research into specifics." you mean that you come to the lab where all equipment, methods, technologies are basically already in place and your transition to research is quick and smooth. It's typical in medicine, bio-sciences, and alike. However, in many engineering fields, it is a very different picture.

Sometimes, just graduated engineers ought to spend years to create with other ones new labs from scratch, where they can begin to research. It is quite a price for doing research. Some people quit, and look for a new job. The point is that people should know exactly what's gonna be their role in a new position and do not sign blindly job applications. It is not happening to everybody. But quite often it's the case.

Dear Dr. Len Leonid Mizrah

Very good and philosophical question.

In my opinion, we should do research to learn something.

Best Regards

Dear dr. Maurice Ekpenyong

Very good contribution

Dear dr. Ian Ewart

Good contribution

Adalberto Portal Camellón

I think that in the history of science it was the invention of a new method of research that was more important than the results. The method starts out somewhat simple and then gradually develops. I personally support the development of a new method in scientific research that leads to the discovery of unknown issues and facts and solving community problems.

Dear Prof. Nima Abdul Sammad Al-Asadi,

Yes, it's intuitively transparent that a method could be a very powerful tool, well beyond the result initially achieved. The discussion in this thread is around researchers' clarity in a possible amount of time and resources may have to be applied to reach serious results in developing a method.

مساهمه جيده

Learning should be the main objective may be academics / research .https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whether_a_degree_based_research_is_more_acceptable_than_the_research_without_a_degree

Dear Jaydip Datta ,

It's hard to argue with this point - whether you learn how to research, or learn from the research results - "Learning should be the main objective".

To learn how to research, or to research for learning something? Under the assumption that a person takes the first steps in research, for example, transitioning into a new field without any experience in it, the latter (research for learning something) probably suits them better than the former.

Dear Prof. Aristidis Matsoukis,

You're right provided research lab methods (and a lab itself) are already available. Otherwise, one may face an alternative as an offer to take part in this lab development (to learn how to research). Some of just college graduated youth face this situation without clear understanding as to what it's gonna take in efforts and timewise.

Knowledge based study in research -https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whether_a_Research_is_Interesting_or_Scoring_or_Knowledge_based-Please_share_your_openion

A closed mouth catches no flies. | Italian Proverb

A courtyard common to all will be swept by none. | Chinese Proverb

A friend's eye is a good mirror. | Irish Proverb

Music in the soul can be heard by the universe.

—  Lao-Tzu, 6th cent. BC, Chinese philosopher

Music is liquid architecture; Architecture is frozen music.

—  Wolfgang Goethe, 1749-1832, German poet & philosopher

Without music, life would be a mistake.

—  Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900, German philosopher

keep (one) dangling | English idiom

Meaning: To maintain some form of relationship with someone without revealing one's true feelings or intentions; to keep someone in an uncertain position.

Examples: (1) If you don't want to marry him, then you have to tell him that—you can't keep him dangling any longer! (2) A: "I'm never going to get a promotion, am I?" B: "With the way the boss keeps you dangling, I doubt it."

eat (one's) hat | English idiom

Meaning: A humorous action that one will allegedly take if something very unlikely happens.

Example: Kevin is always late, so if he actually shows up on time, I'll eat my hat.

ogle at (one) | English idiom

Meaning: To stare at one, especially in a lecherous, lustful, or objectifying manner.

Examples: (1) Some guy at the bar has been ogling at me all night. Let's leave. (2) I'm sorry, I really wasn't ogling at you, I was just lost in thought and happened to be staring in your direction.