There may be a difference between the question of what research is, and what research should be. In other words how rigorous should an enquiry be in order to be called research, how systematic, how original ? I suppose we should ask why we are interested in this question ? What hinges upon it ? Critical theorists argue that research is a process in which we seek to manage or change our environment by looking at it in new ways and seeking to adapt it to our human needs and interests. Karl Popper referred to science as a process of exosomatic evolution in which our 'theories die in our steads'. I would argue that any process that makes a reliable and valid contribution to human understanding may be regarded as research.

According to me, Research is the finding of depth knowledge and facts about the topic and finding new and unique conclusion .

Regards,

Nitish

Miles,

I think the real question should be "what is knowledge?". Research is simply the means to attaining knowledge. Therefore what research is depends on what knowledge your want to uncover / create. I think "rigorous search" is insufficient to characterize research, it has to be systematic and methodological too, using methods grounds in theory which give us reasons to believe the methods are likely to produce the type of knowledge we are looking for.

Matthew

Thank you Matthew and Nitish for taking time out to consider this question and to volunteer to take part in this attempt at focus group research mediated through ResearchGate here.

This is my first attempt at virtual facilitation and I hope you and future members will be patient with me as I progress along this steep learning curve. Thank you.

From the 10th January 2014 to 10th Feb I am leaving open for more people to join this focus group. From the contributions that emerge each month I aim to develop the next question here within this broader initial question, until such time as we have reached our destination. Given the nature of this process, the costs involved are the time each focus group member is willing to give and as such this process is not so restricted by financial and time constraints that it may otherwise have been,

There may be a difference between the question of what research is, and what research should be. In other words how rigorous should an enquiry be in order to be called research, how systematic, how original ? I suppose we should ask why we are interested in this question ? What hinges upon it ? Critical theorists argue that research is a process in which we seek to manage or change our environment by looking at it in new ways and seeking to adapt it to our human needs and interests. Karl Popper referred to science as a process of exosomatic evolution in which our 'theories die in our steads'. I would argue that any process that makes a reliable and valid contribution to human understanding may be regarded as research.

Research is to get to know about A to Z of a dimension in a topic, either smaller or larger topic. Research means to get a polished particle out of a mountain.

Thanks Mike and Sahifa. I'm hopeful a few more readers may take the plunge and see where this journey takes us all together; as well as having the companionship of each other during it!

Research can be calssified into three categories:

(1) Fundamental Resarch: a comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study, without considering any specific applications. This type of research usually advances scientific knowledge but does not necessarily have immediate commercial ramifications or objectives,

(2) Applied Research: oriented to wards gaining knowledge or understanding to determine the means by which a specific recognised need may be met. From an industry perspective, applied research includes investigations that aim to discover scientific knowledge that has particular commercial consequences in terms of products, services or processes,

(3) Development: the systematic use of knowledge or understanding gained from research oriented towards the production of USEFUL artifacts, systems or methods, including design and development of prototypes and processes.

Hi Nitish, Matthew, Mike, Sahifa and Mohamed,

We have above some fascinating views towards the answer of "What research is."

Please could you review each others answers? Once done could you please take some time to synthesis your thoughts and create a log of them here until 20th February 2014.

Hi Mohamed,

I agree your distinctions though I would add that the boundaries can be blurred.

In common language the term 'research' simply means to systematically find something out - this could be as simple as researching the best price for a car on the internet. In academic and professional contexts there are additional qualifications for something to count as research.

If it is fundamental or 'blue skies', it must at least address questions that have broader interest than my own personal curiosity. But more significantly research in the academic and professional sense is not just finding out, but explaining why things happen as they do. Furthermore these explanations must have a degree of generalizability. I might conduct some evaluation research to find out why a particular cohort of my students produced inferior marks in their exams than previous ones. This research might produce interesting insights for me and enable me to avoid the situation with future cohorts, but it is unlikely to be very interesting for anybody else. We may not wish to refer to this as research in the academic or professional sense.

There is a contemporary school of social research that focusses on autobiographical data. The research is often termed 'narrative' and the form of analysis is psycho/socio analytical. The problem with this research is that although it is interesting to read about other people's lives, it is not informative in any theoretical or practical way. It tends to be descriptive rather than critical or explanatory and as such one might argue that it is only marginally qualified to be called research.