How to become a better researcher

[Justo Miranda]

Sorry, still not seeing your point. Thicknesses can be measured, and there are formulas that describe correlations of volumes and temperatures. What am I (possibly) missing?

Basically, it is about revealing the distinction between theory and practice, between the ideal world and the real world and its associated problems.

The creators of this dichotomy were the Greek philosophers, who considered experimentation as something inappropriate to their intellectual level of mathematical abstractions.

 

[Arjen]

It may be an allusion to the notion that complete interrelated reality is too complex for the human mind to grasp, so we construct models. The only complete model of reality would have to be as complex as reality itself - thereby as unfathomable as reality itself.

To keep models managageable, they must be simplifications of reality. With simplification, we accept that we will overlook some aspects of reality. Sometimes, we find out we have left out something essential to understanding the bit of reality we are examining. At which moment, reality bites and we have to develop a better model. Hopefully, that model will be superseded by something even better. Because overlooking some good bits is what we limited humans will inevitably do.

Be honest, express yourself clearly, and never, ever confuse any model with reality.

Consider that you might be wrong. Take in as many points of view of reality as you can handle without going crazy. Which brings me to my last point: know your limits.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I have absolutely no idea what point you may be trying to make.

In the ideal world of the Greek mathematicians, a line is immaterial and has no thickness, a plane has no thickness, and the volume of a sphere is unalterable.

 

[Justo Miranda]

It may be an allusion to the notion that complete interrelated reality is too complex for the human mind to grasp, so we construct models. The only complete model of reality would have to be as complex as reality itself - thereby as unfathomable as reality itself.

To keep models managageable, they must be simplifications of reality. With simplification, we accept that we will overlook some aspects of reality. Sometimes, we find out we have left out something essential to understanding the bit of reality we are examining. At which moment, reality bites and we have to develop a better model. Hopefully, that model will be superseded by something even better. Because overlooking some good bits is what we limited humans will inevitably do.

Be honest, express yourself clearly, and never, ever confuse any model with reality.

Consider that you might be wrong. Take in as many points of view of reality as you can handle without going crazy. Which brings me to my last point: know your limits.

The difference between these two illustrations illustrates the difference between the two universes

 

[martinbayer]

I don't see two universes, just one that contains all different kinds of artifacts.

 

[edwest4]

The difference between these two illustrations illustrates the difference between the two universes

What are you on about? Really? No reason that these two items should not be included in a book about the type, or any aircraft for that matter.

 

[edwest4]

It may be an allusion to the notion that complete interrelated reality is too complex for the human mind to grasp, so we construct models. The only complete model of reality would have to be as complex as reality itself - thereby as unfathomable as reality itself.

To keep models managageable, they must be simplifications of reality. With simplification, we accept that we will overlook some aspects of reality. Sometimes, we find out we have left out something essential to understanding the bit of reality we are examining. At which moment, reality bites and we have to develop a better model. Hopefully, that model will be superseded by something even better. Because overlooking some good bits is what we limited humans will inevitably do.

Be honest, express yourself clearly, and never, ever confuse any model with reality.

Consider that you might be wrong. Take in as many points of view of reality as you can handle without going crazy. Which brings me to my last point: know your limits.

I find it odd that aircraft color charts from the war are not confused with anything. Or lists of aircraft that were shot down that include type, date and the pilot credited. These things are reality.

It's never good or helpful to consider that you could be wrong about anything, as long as sufficient documents related to the subject can be produced.

Early on, I was bothered by doubts in my research efforts regarding whether I would find anything at all regarding the subject I was given to research. Such thoughts should be ignored and the work completed.

 

[Justo Miranda]

What are you on about? Really? No reason that these two items should not be included in a book about the type, or any aircraft for that matter.

We look different but we're in the same boat

 

[edwest4]

We look different but we're in the same boat

I see. I guess my only response is wha... wha... what?

 

[Justo Miranda]

I see. I guess my only response is wha... wha... what?

You know, a place where weird guys get together to talk about their hobbies

 

[Justo Miranda]

I don't see two universes, just one that contains all different kinds of artifacts.

When I imagine a line it is just a combination of electrochemical stimuli between neurons, if I draw a line it becomes something real with dimensions, color and depth on paper. The materialization of ideas is a leap between universes. Heisenberg explains it better than I do with his theory of quantum uncertainty.

These Germans are always complicating everything with their obsession with accuracy.

Not even an atomic clock is accurate.

 

[edwest4]

You know, a place where weird guys get together to talk about their hobbies

I'm not weird. Oh wait...

 

[martinbayer]

When I imagine a line it is just a combination of electrochemical stimuli between neurons, if I draw a line it becomes something real with dimensions, color and depth on paper. The materialization of ideas is a leap between universes. Heisenberg explains it better than I do with his theory of quantum uncertainty.

You and I apparently have very different understandings of what constitutes the universe - in mine, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe, the stroke of a pen does not create one, but is simply part of the one in existence.

 

[Arjen]

It's never good or helpful to consider that you could be wrong about anything, as long as sufficient documents related to the subject can be produced.

With tunnel vision you will cast aside information that contradicts your theory / view of history / validity of your equation, and you will only have eyes for what confirms your position.

In the worst of cases, that will turn you into a new Trofim Lysenko. Whose followers caused famine and death.

 

[edwest4]

With tunnel vision you will cast aside information that contradicts your theory / view of history / validity of your equation, and you will only have eyes for what confirms your position.

In the worst of cases, that will turn you into a new Trofim Lysenko. Whose followers caused famine and death.

Well, I didn't expect this apocalyptic reply. I have been a researcher for 40 years for a company with a no-nonsense approach. I have researched things I am familiar with and other things of which I had no prior knowledge. I am given a budget and a deadline. No time to dawdle. I have used the published work of other researchers as a template. It's quite simple actually, but it can be a little different for certain subjects. I am expected to be neutral and comprehensive with my findings. Regardless of subject, I go in with no biases. I collect factual information. Once collected, I am expected to understand it thoroughly. I have to have facts. I am not looking to argue for any position regarding those facts. If, for example, I find that the facts contradict some current beliefs. I just present the facts. I let everything fall where it may. I am unconcerned about contradictions - facts are facts. That is how historical research is done regardless of the specifics. I want to add that a number of popular conceptions of past events have been shown to be wrong. All it takes is producing a number of supporting documents. If those documents did not exist then I would have nothing to say.

One more thing about sources. A list:

Primary documents.
Contemporary accounts by credible witnesses.
Professional journals that cover what I am researching.
Books by credible authors that reference documents.
Magazine articles written by credible writers.

 

[Arjen]

didn't expect this apocalyptic reply

A worst case scenario. If you have never come across contradictory information, you have not been paying attention.

Weigh the evidence. 'I do not know', 'undecided' can be proper answers. I originally trained as a biologist, in biology binary answers to questions are the exception. Much the same as in history, I suspect.

Oscar Wilde: 'The truth is rarely pure and never simple'.

 

[edwest4]

A worst case scenario. If you have never come across contradictory information, you have not been paying attention.

Weigh the evidence. 'I do not know', 'undecided' can be proper answers. I originally trained as a biologist, in biology binary answers to questions are the exception. Much the same as in history, I suspect.

Oscar Wilde: 'The truth is rarely pure and never simple'.

Well, in historical research, the facts are the facts. All military history books are written with the unspoken: "As far as is known as of the date of this writing." Sometimes, new documents surface, along with related information. Here's an example about the attack at Arnhem, a subject that British people seem somewhat obsessed about.

Einsatz Arnheim

Uncover the secrets of German armoured forces at the Battle of Arnhem with Einsatz Arnheim. With 536 pages and 445 photos, this is not to be missed!

www.panzerwrecks.com

New books about the American Civil War appear on a regular basis. Specific engagements are reviewed over and over from various perspectives. Sometimes, new information in the way of documents, letters and new research into obscure archives reveals previously unknown details. It's a bit like a painting of the engagement. The new details modify this painting in major and/or minor ways. The picture becomes clearer and clearer. And since photos were taken during the war, a new one does emerge from time to time. A recent example shows a number of men in a field. None of them wear the same type of hat, which surprised researchers. However, I am not a Civil War researcher.

 

[MrPhantomMan]

People have provided some really good advice. I would add: have structure and learn some analytical techniques. To that end, give yourself some questions you want answered otherwise you'll end up wandering all over the place.

Rate your sources. Make up some hypothesis and test them.

How much of all of these things you do depends a lot on how complicated your central question is.

Keep an open mind and let the evidence take you where it takes you.

 

[Justo Miranda]

You and I apparently have very different understandings of what constitutes the universe - in mine, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe, the stroke of a pen does not create one, but is simply part of the one in existence.

The good thing about quantum theories is that they allow the existence of any kind of universe, the reason that we can have these fun discussions proves the existence of worm tunnels, one of the best explored is called "Secretprojects".

 

[Justo Miranda]

With tunnel vision you will cast aside information that contradicts your theory / view of history / validity of your equation, and you will only have eyes for what confirms your position.

In the worst of cases, that will turn you into a new Trofim Lysenko. Whose followers caused famine and death.

I agree with Arjen on the issue of acknowledging one's own mistakes, in my opinion that is the basis of modern science.



The tunnel effect has its origins in the old melee wars in which the only chance of survival was to see only the enemy in front of you, ignoring everything else... if you wanted to become a centurion.

That is a useful combat tactic for survival, but very dangerous for others if used to thrive in a civilized society and definitely lethal in politics.

Can you imagine Lysenko acting as European Commissioner for the Ecological Transition?

A terrifying idea because of its feasibility.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Well, I didn't expect this apocalyptic reply. I have been a researcher for 40 years for a company with a no-nonsense approach. I have researched things I am familiar with and other things of which I had no prior knowledge. I am given a budget and a deadline. No time to dawdle. I have used the published work of other researchers as a template. It's quite simple actually, but it can be a little different for certain subjects. I am expected to be neutral and comprehensive with my findings. Regardless of subject, I go in with no biases. I collect factual information. Once collected, I am expected to understand it thoroughly. I have to have facts. I am not looking to argue for any position regarding those facts. If, for example, I find that the facts contradict some current beliefs. I just present the facts. I let everything fall where it may. I am unconcerned about contradictions - facts are facts. That is how historical research is done regardless of the specifics. I want to add that a number of popular conceptions of past events have been shown to be wrong. All it takes is producing a number of supporting documents. If those documents did not exist then I would have nothing to say.

One more thing about sources. A list:

Primary documents.
Contemporary accounts by credible witnesses.
Professional journals that cover what I am researching.
Books by credible authors that reference documents.
Magazine articles written by credible writers.

The problem with such research is to determine which authors are credible in each case. It is a very slippery ground because an author can be very respectable during his maturity and start writing nonsense from the age of sixty, or the other way around. There are also authors who are very reliable when they write as professionals in their specialty and simple amateurs when they give their opinion on other topics that the reader knows better.

The label of respectability is also very politicisable: in the time of the ozone layer the climate change cassandras who defended the theory of cooling obtained the best subsidies and now priority is given to those of warming in "impartial" scientific publications.

 

[Justo Miranda]

A worst case scenario. If you have never come across contradictory information, you have not been paying attention.

Weigh the evidence. 'I do not know', 'undecided' can be proper answers. I originally trained as a biologist, in biology binary answers to questions are the exception. Much the same as in history, I suspect.

Oscar Wilde: 'The truth is rarely pure and never simple'.

I agree with the biological definition: if something is alive it is because it has done the right thing in each case, exceptions are rare because almost all mutations are evolutionary failures. There's just one thing that doesn't fit this classic definition well: it's the chirality of all known life forms... Would protein-based life with inverted symmetry be possible?

On the contrary, history will always have both sides: winner and loser.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Well, in historical research, the facts are the facts. All military history books are written with the unspoken: "As far as is known as of the date of this writing." Sometimes, new documents surface, along with related information. Here's an example about the attack at Arnhem, a subject that British people seem somewhat obsessed about.

Einsatz Arnheim

Uncover the secrets of German armoured forces at the Battle of Arnhem with Einsatz Arnheim. With 536 pages and 445 photos, this is not to be missed!

www.panzerwrecks.com

New books about the American Civil War appear on a regular basis. Specific engagements are reviewed over and over from various perspectives. Sometimes, new information in the way of documents, letters and new research into obscure archives reveals previously unknown details. It's a bit like a painting of the engagement. The new details modify this painting in major and/or minor ways. The picture becomes clearer and clearer. And since photos were taken during the war, a new one does emerge from time to time. A recent example shows a number of men in a field. None of them wear the same type of hat, which surprised researchers. However, I am not a Civil War researcher.

The more history I read, the more I realize how difficult it is to judge past events using the moral concepts of our civilized societies.

It is easy to criticize the mistakes made by leaders who relied on contradictory information and primitive communication systems. To understand the outcome of a battle, it would be necessary to have thousands of pieces of data that will never be available, such as how long soldiers had not drunk, the quality of middle command, visibility, rain, the state of the terrain, the heat or cold suffered during marches to the front, epidemics caused by local food, the betrayals and mistakes made by the scouts, the superstitious beliefs, the proximity of the battle to the home region of some vital commanders, the problem of supplies, transmission errors in the chain of command and, as always... damn luck. I started asking myself these questions after watching the movie "Kingdom of Heaven", that was my Openheimer moment.

 

[Justo Miranda]

People have provided some really good advice. I would add: have structure and learn some analytical techniques. To that end, give yourself some questions you want answered otherwise you'll end up wandering all over the place.

Rate your sources. Make up some hypothesis and test them.

How much of all of these things you do depends a lot on how complicated your central question is.

Keep an open mind and let the evidence take you where it takes you.

I can offer an example of the advantages of having an open mind:

In 1865 Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule while thinking of Ouroboros, an ancient symbol depicting a serpent eating its own tail.

 

[Schneiderman]

I can offer an example of the advantages of having an open mind:

In 1865 Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule while thinking of Ouroboros, an ancient symbol depicting a serpent eating its own tail.

.....or, perhaps, a classic example of weaving a story around a subject to make it sound a little more memorable. There are plenty of examples of that.

 

[Justo Miranda]

.....or, perhaps, a classic example of weaving a story around a subject to make it sound a little more memorable. There are plenty of examples of that.

One of the most unfair examples was the enormous contribution made by Rosalind Franklin in the discovery of helical DNA, unfortunately, Franklin's great contribution was never recognized.

 

[Arjen]

unfortunately, Franklin's great contribution was never recognized

Not in her lifetime, tragically.

 

[Arjen]

if something is alive it is because it has done the right thing in each case

I would change that to something that worked at that time.
Which leaves room for different adaptations to the same circumstances, and suddenly, diversity rears up its head.

I am currently reading a diversity of historical books about the 17th and 18th centuries, all of them written from different perspectives. I pick out the items of interest to me, and gather new areas of interest at the same time.

 

[publiusr]

Also, having many different interests may be of use...I seem to remember someone from the Hubble program inspired by a certain sliding shower fixture from Germany---when it came time to fix the optics.

I have often chafed in some fora where someone complains about this or that being "off topic."

I am not entirely sure there is such a thing.

 

[Hood]

I've heard historians disparage technical historians.
For example, one lecturer of mine disparaged talk about the differences in the armament between Spitfire/Hurricane 8-guns and Bf 109s as "meaningless" to Battle of Britain history. He'd probably junk Calum Douglas' book on engines as irrelevant bumpf.
Yet he would happily trot out the old tropes of Chain Home and Dowding's organisational skill etc.

The aviation historian is distained by academic historians - in a way that maritime historians don't seem to be, Eric Grove et al often appeared on the telly etc. - and few are ever quoted in footnotes etc. We're seen as niche subject specialists. We don't talk about grand narratives or societal impacts or Great Men (or Great Women) or economics or policy. But we'll happily talk about power curves and cannon rate of fire and RCS figures all day long. The recording of oral and written personal recollections is perhaps one exception to this (see Phantom Boys, Buccaneer Boys, Spitfire Boys, Hercules Boys, Ground Crew Boys, ATC Boys, F-15 Boys et al).

To my mind that's disappointing. Disappointing that academic history doesn't grasp that unless you have a technical grasp that you're losing a vital understanding of why things happened the way they did. Equally disappointing that too often aviation historians overlook the other factors (TSR.2 ad nauseum is a fitting illustration for 95% of the people who've ever commented on the subject).

 

[Nicknick]

One fundamental thing is, stay focused and don't produce a large quantity of entropie, as in this thread....

 

[martinbayer]

The good thing about quantum theories is that they allow the existence of any kind of universe, the reason that we can have these fun discussions proves the existence of worm tunnels, one of the best explored is called "Secretprojects".

With the emphasis on *theory*...

 

[paralay]

Imagine you have a boy or girl in front of you who dreams of becoming an researcher in the future.
He/She asks you, "How can I become a better researcher?"
What advice would you give him/her?

Collect all possible information on the topic you are interested in. Any, even the most controversial and esoteric. The verification stage will come later, when the collected grains begin to confirm or refute each other.
Would-be researchers are in the blinders of their chosen dogmas, this path will not lead you to the Truth.

 

[CJGibson]

I've heard historians disparage technical historians.
For example, one lecturer of mine disparaged talk about the differences in the armament between Spitfire/Hurricane 8-guns and Bf 109s as "meaningless" to Battle of Britain history. He'd probably junk Calum Douglas' book on engines as irrelevant bumpf.
Yet he would happily trot out the old tropes of Chain Home and Dowding's organisational skill etc.

The aviation historian is distained by academic historians - in a way that maritime historians don't seem to be, Eric Grove et al often appeared on the telly etc. - and few are ever quoted in footnotes etc.

Probably because there is no scope for citation in our non-academic books.

Chris

 

[Mike Pryce]

Write.

One thing lost since digital cameras came along is the need to take notes in the archive.

You can still write notes based on your thoughts after reading all the stuff you photographed, but I know I am guilty of just thinking I will look at the images again. My old notes are more useful than many recent photos of files.

Don't just record an interview and write a transcript after; take notes during the interview.

Look at drawings and photos and write what you see.

Writing a draft of an article or book helps you realise what you think based on your sources and notes.

Writing and editing to get to the final draft that others will read really makes you focus on what you think about it all. And that is really what good research is. Discovering what you think.

Writing helps you do that.

So write.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Probably because there is no scope for citation in our non-academic books.

Chris

All of us have suffered this type of discrimination at some time, none of my forty-six books and thirty monographs appear in the Wikipedia bibliography.

 

[Schneiderman]

I would say remember that whatever topic you are researching it did not happen in isolation, context and timeline are fundamental. This will mean there is a need to research a little outside of your primary focus.

For context you need to be aware of personal, social, technical, financial and political factors that all have an impact. For example, if you are researching a particular aircraft or engine, what were the technical constraints of that time, what else was occupying the company’s attention, who was the customer, what did they specify and was there competition, what was happening overseas, who was paying and were there constraints,? And so on.

Timeline is broadly similar but add, who were the competition and were they ahead or behind you, was there a firm test or delivery target, were there constraints imposed by subcontractors? And so on.

I would also caution about over reliance on published works. Many written, say, before the 1990s are proving erroneous and/or biased. Some by eminent and well-regarded authors. Then quite a few more recent works draw heavily on some of these and it shows, you can track the erroneous material and the source can sometimes be rather unexpected. As an example take the British specification F.7/30 for a Day and Night Fighter. Someone, I won’t say who. wrote that this required a top speed of 250mph and the use of the Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine, both complete fabrication and totally misleading. You will see those claims rattling down through many published works even after it was shown to be incorrect more than a couple of decades ago.

Finally, there are now a great number of museums, societies, trusts etc. that have organised archives. In many cases these have placed their catalogues online and are manned by helpful staff, often volunteers who are as interested in the material as you are. Do not restrict your search to the more obvious archives, you would be surprised where good primary research material has ended up. Of course there are a few thoroughly unhelpful archives out there, guarding their archive like Smaug with his gold, but that’s life.

Don’t be reluctant to ask for assistance on this and similar forums. There are many researchers, authors and enthusiasts who would be willing to offer advice and assistance.

 

[edwest4]

The problem with such research is to determine which authors are credible in each case. It is a very slippery ground because an author can be very respectable during his maturity and start writing nonsense from the age of sixty, or the other way around. There are also authors who are very reliable when they write as professionals in their specialty and simple amateurs when they give their opinion on other topics that the reader knows better.

The label of respectability is also very politicisable: in the time of the ozone layer the climate change cassandras who defended the theory of cooling obtained the best subsidies and now priority is given to those of warming in "impartial" scientific publications.

You don't know what you're talking about. Nothing slippery at all. I can contact these authors and I can review their work independently.

I am tired of reading about "victims." As in, "something bad could happen."

I am tired of the "you might fall into a hole from which you may not be able to climb out of" mentality.

If politics takes over "scientific" research, I cannot dislodge it. If the wealthy wants to scare people into buying electric cars, or solar panels or wind farms, fine. They are out to make money as always. No change there.

I am more than sick and tired of false claims surviving through the decades. If people want to be lazy then this will continue unabated.

 

[edwest4]

Write.

One thing lost since digital cameras came along is the need to take notes in the archive.

You can still write notes based on your thoughts after reading all the stuff you photographed, but I know I am guilty of just thinking I will look at the images again. My old notes are more useful than many recent photos of files.

Don't just record an interview and write a transcript after; take notes during the interview.

Look at drawings and photos and write what you see.

Writing a draft of an article or book helps you realise what you think based on your sources and notes.

Writing and editing to get to the final draft that others will read really makes you focus on what you think about it all. And that is really what good research is. Discovering what you think.

Writing helps you do that.

So write.

Partly. Nothing has changed in my 40 years of doing research. Nothing. Bias is the primary problem today. Amateurs have no business being on the internet while posing as 'those with actual comprehensive knowledge.' I've seen it. The blog/post/podcast is biased in some way. I never take the word of Bob Nobody online. Never. I still see vague references backed up by nothing. No primary documents, no eyewitness accounts. Nothing.

So, there's the primary problem for those who want quick and easy. No credible sources. Just someone somewhere with no actual identity dashing off a few words.

Finally, just because you can write posts on the internet does not mean you've become a "writer." There is some skill involved. It can be learned. But time is required.

 

[Justo Miranda]

You don't know what you're talking about. Nothing slippery at all. I can contact these authors and I can review their work independently.

I am tired of reading about "victims." As in, "something bad could happen."

I am tired of the "you might fall into a hole from which you may not be able to climb out of" mentality.

If politics takes over "scientific" research, I cannot dislodge it. If the wealthy wants to scare people into buying electric cars, or solar panels or wind farms, fine. They are out to make money as always. No change there.

I am more than sick and tired of false claims surviving through the decades. If people want to be lazy then this will continue unabated.

As the robot said: you need a vacation