Powered By Blogger

2011-07-03

'Re-inventing the wheel: Principles in Scientific Research'


‘Re-inventing the wheel’: Principles in Scientific Research

Raymond Erick Zvavanyange 

 (Acknowledgments to Jami Willard (Yakima Washington, USA) and Tzy-Ling Chen (Taiwan, R.O.C) for generating interest in the thought processes)  

Key Message

This article looks at what makes researchers who they are in view of the countless hours spent in rigorous scientific debates, experiment, practice, inquiry and solitary periods putting ideas together to form a cohesive idea.  

Introduction
Ever heard of the phrase “you cannot re-invent the wheel”. What does it mean to you? In the simplest sense, it means you cannot rediscover something that has already been discovered. “Once discovered is not always discovered”.  This holds true in scientific research. There exists discovery and perhaps rediscovery or re-inventing cycles in scientific research. Sometimes this is as a result of careful planning or in other times ad hoc. Whatever the case may be research outputs should ultimately be tested, verified and defended against prevailing research positions. Whether these are outputs from a new drug, chemical, least cost methods, a reflection on important scientific principles would help here. Researchers should put pieces together and generate relevant outputs. Since there are different philosophies, different pressures, different study conditions and different audiences as well, how to achieve this may seem impossible.   
Finding a footing
It is a challenge to find a footing in science for this is a universally defined field of study. The same goes again in setting up scientific principles. Basic questions like what constitute a good researcher would be asked? What is it that makes researchers tick as if it were? What codes do researchers follow? New researchers may have difficult finding a footing in scientific research, but however, as experience shows, everything is worth a try, as long as the protocols and procedures are followed.  The future and breakthroughs in science belongs to those who take the challenge. In addition, these breakthroughs should be based on strict protocols and procedures during investigation. It may turn out a huge surprise for both established and new researchers that strict adherence to protocols may actually lead to a re-invention of the wheel.

Core aspects
In the course of finding out what makes a researcher tick, it should be borne in mind that research work is driven by aims and objectives. Sometimes this is to test, verify or dispute unclear research outputs. Without such, research loses its core. It becomes irrelevant to either societal needs or career development. Furthermore, it is a waste of valuable resources, both time and funds. Therefore, in carrying out research repeatability, consistence and probability are aspects that count. They should however, not be regarded as the final authority because of the presence of human error. They do serve as a useful guide, nevertheless especially when considering transplanting research outputs to field level.   
Rise and end of uncertainties
Sometimes, researchers find themselves having to deal with uncertainties, which in the broad sense, are a principle and a feature in scientific research. This leads to an important point where how a researcher addresses uncertainties becomes crucial in putting all the research knowledge together.  Through searching for innovative modes of thinking and practice, uncertainties can be anticipated; risks minimized.  Because research outcomes are highly unpredictable when one sets out on this course, a few lucky ones may depend on chance and luck.  The point here is that there is no clear-cut strategy to deal with uncertainties but rather ways to equip researchers form a good base. A useful guide on being a scientist is the book and video by The National Academies Press, “On Being a Scientist” found here

Position of research in time events
Scientific output adds up. Any output that does not add up serve to refine better a particular scientific position.  This is a valuable area stimulating scientific debates but should not be the envisaged goal before undertaking a research. Therefore, a look at the origins of the use of logic which formed the basis of understanding how societies are organized and managed is important. “Logical debates” by early philosophers such as Socrates and Plato reveals that the essence of using logic is solely for the pursuit of knowledge. This should be a basic rule in scientific research as deviations only serve to further interests for specific groups.  

Conclusion
Scientific research can only be stimulating and enriching when protocols and procedures are followed. Stakes to deliver sound and relevant research are very high. Because all the scientific outputs should add up, searches should be conducted to find new modes of thinking that will revolutionize the field. It may be a breakthrough, surprise, and pace-setter to note that, after all, there is a possibility to re-invent the wheel.  

4 comments:

  1. Good article, good ethics and sound reasoning ... thanks. In our world of instant results and social networking, "good" scientific research which is well grounded with proper protocols and scientific procedure is all the more relevant. Let's hope we see more of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Indeed, "good" scientific research is the goal.
    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Took this Sunday to read the article calmly. nice and thoughtful. Jia you my bro this blog will have long life for sure

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks. Untapped ideas yet to be modeled to the scientific community by any interested in the pursuit.

    ReplyDelete

2011-07-03

'Re-inventing the wheel: Principles in Scientific Research'


‘Re-inventing the wheel’: Principles in Scientific Research

Raymond Erick Zvavanyange 

 (Acknowledgments to Jami Willard (Yakima Washington, USA) and Tzy-Ling Chen (Taiwan, R.O.C) for generating interest in the thought processes)  

Key Message

This article looks at what makes researchers who they are in view of the countless hours spent in rigorous scientific debates, experiment, practice, inquiry and solitary periods putting ideas together to form a cohesive idea.  

Introduction
Ever heard of the phrase “you cannot re-invent the wheel”. What does it mean to you? In the simplest sense, it means you cannot rediscover something that has already been discovered. “Once discovered is not always discovered”.  This holds true in scientific research. There exists discovery and perhaps rediscovery or re-inventing cycles in scientific research. Sometimes this is as a result of careful planning or in other times ad hoc. Whatever the case may be research outputs should ultimately be tested, verified and defended against prevailing research positions. Whether these are outputs from a new drug, chemical, least cost methods, a reflection on important scientific principles would help here. Researchers should put pieces together and generate relevant outputs. Since there are different philosophies, different pressures, different study conditions and different audiences as well, how to achieve this may seem impossible.   
Finding a footing
It is a challenge to find a footing in science for this is a universally defined field of study. The same goes again in setting up scientific principles. Basic questions like what constitute a good researcher would be asked? What is it that makes researchers tick as if it were? What codes do researchers follow? New researchers may have difficult finding a footing in scientific research, but however, as experience shows, everything is worth a try, as long as the protocols and procedures are followed.  The future and breakthroughs in science belongs to those who take the challenge. In addition, these breakthroughs should be based on strict protocols and procedures during investigation. It may turn out a huge surprise for both established and new researchers that strict adherence to protocols may actually lead to a re-invention of the wheel.

Core aspects
In the course of finding out what makes a researcher tick, it should be borne in mind that research work is driven by aims and objectives. Sometimes this is to test, verify or dispute unclear research outputs. Without such, research loses its core. It becomes irrelevant to either societal needs or career development. Furthermore, it is a waste of valuable resources, both time and funds. Therefore, in carrying out research repeatability, consistence and probability are aspects that count. They should however, not be regarded as the final authority because of the presence of human error. They do serve as a useful guide, nevertheless especially when considering transplanting research outputs to field level.   
Rise and end of uncertainties
Sometimes, researchers find themselves having to deal with uncertainties, which in the broad sense, are a principle and a feature in scientific research. This leads to an important point where how a researcher addresses uncertainties becomes crucial in putting all the research knowledge together.  Through searching for innovative modes of thinking and practice, uncertainties can be anticipated; risks minimized.  Because research outcomes are highly unpredictable when one sets out on this course, a few lucky ones may depend on chance and luck.  The point here is that there is no clear-cut strategy to deal with uncertainties but rather ways to equip researchers form a good base. A useful guide on being a scientist is the book and video by The National Academies Press, “On Being a Scientist” found here

Position of research in time events
Scientific output adds up. Any output that does not add up serve to refine better a particular scientific position.  This is a valuable area stimulating scientific debates but should not be the envisaged goal before undertaking a research. Therefore, a look at the origins of the use of logic which formed the basis of understanding how societies are organized and managed is important. “Logical debates” by early philosophers such as Socrates and Plato reveals that the essence of using logic is solely for the pursuit of knowledge. This should be a basic rule in scientific research as deviations only serve to further interests for specific groups.  

Conclusion
Scientific research can only be stimulating and enriching when protocols and procedures are followed. Stakes to deliver sound and relevant research are very high. Because all the scientific outputs should add up, searches should be conducted to find new modes of thinking that will revolutionize the field. It may be a breakthrough, surprise, and pace-setter to note that, after all, there is a possibility to re-invent the wheel.  

4 comments:

  1. Good article, good ethics and sound reasoning ... thanks. In our world of instant results and social networking, "good" scientific research which is well grounded with proper protocols and scientific procedure is all the more relevant. Let's hope we see more of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Indeed, "good" scientific research is the goal.
    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Took this Sunday to read the article calmly. nice and thoughtful. Jia you my bro this blog will have long life for sure

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks. Untapped ideas yet to be modeled to the scientific community by any interested in the pursuit.

    ReplyDelete