Comments on: Quick notes on research and information science

By: Henrik Erlandsson

Henrik Erlandsson — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:56:11 +0000

Nice read, a good topic for a more in-depth article, I think. The answers I’ve found so far are 1) If you’re in a very specific field and read a lot of papers etc anyway, knowing who’s done what before comes naturally. Cross-branch research is another story… and 2) The resulting texts is what decides if you’ve done the research scientifically. If the text/data is freely accessible, if you clearly described the problem, and if you completely describe the solution and results, it’s fine.
Basis in statistics is dubious, basis in references slightly better. Basis in fact and providing the means to let other reproduce the results should be the only things you should worry about.

By: Leigh Anne

Leigh Anne — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:59:51 +0000

The phrase for what you do is, I believe, “independent scholarship.” You’re just not affiliated with an institution (right?). That has pluses and minuses. Doesn’t make it NOT scholarship. JMHO.
LAV

By: Walt Crawford

Walt Crawford — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:00:15 +0000

Three problems with that, nice as it is:
1. I generally have no way of knowing about it.
2. I’m guessing that most such citations are for Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0″ (after all, 40,000+ downloads/views must mean something!) and other things that I wouldn’t consider research as such.
3. Invisible usage of non-research materials doesn’t provide me with any impetus or grounding for doing further research.
Not that I don’t appreciate it: I do.

By: kathleen

kathleen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:02:18 +0000

You say, “Most importantly: The work hasn’t been cited by any information scientists, as far as I can tell.” You mean cited in any of the journals? That’s just one bibliometric.
I know you are on many class reading lists.