Week 11: It's all about the (Research) Process

by Shant Shahoian and lightly editied by Adina Lerner

Introduction

This week, as you explore more tools to help you find relevant sources for your research question, you'll have to start thinking about this entire project much more carefully. I'll explain more about this in this week's lecture below. However, remember to track the changes and growth you are experiencing by keeping an editable document that each of you contributes to regularly. It's like a diary in this way. You'll want to note individual changes, challenges, and triumphs. The research project for this course is as much about the process of research as it is the end result of your work. 

The Research Process

Is an adaptation of the graphic produced by the American Library Association (ALA). 

Research Process diagram: steps of the research process. This diagram shows a series of interlocking gears, each representing a stage in the research process: 

Step 1: Define the topic
Step 2: Narrow the topic
Step 3: Gather background information
Step 4: Create a research question
Step 5: Develop a working thesis statement
Step 6: Find and Evaluate sources
Step 7: Cite sources
Step 8: Write the paper

You used keywords and narrowing trees to define and narrow topics a few weeks ago. During the course of this class, you have been gathering background information on the topics for this project, which lead to a research question (Step 4). You're gathering more background information -- in the form of an Advanced Google Search last week and more searches this week -- and these results will ultimately inform your understanding of your research question. There is a back and forth dynamic here, where you read more and continue to refine your question. When you feel your question is strong enough, you hone your research around that concrete research question, ultimately developing a thesis, which is essentially an answer to that research question. For example, if my research question was "Is non-organic bovine milk unhealthy for immunocompromised children under 12?" your thesis could be, "Non-organic bovine milk is unhealthy for immunocompromised children under 12." Do all the sources here support this thesis? Maybe the sources are leading you to a related question, "Is unpasteurized bovine milk unhealthy for immunocompromised children under 12?" Then, you have to vet your previous sources again. Then, you think you have it balanced.

So, then, you're all set! No. You're not. You continue to do research, and you find anomalies. You tweak your question. You vet your current sources and find new ones. You modify your thesis: "Unpasteurized bovine milk is unhealthy for immunocompromised boys under 12." Then, you see that some of your previous sources may not quite fit this new thesis. Etcetera. This process could take years, really, but for the purposes of this class, you'll be working in teams to answer a researchable question, the scope of which can be researched in a much shorter time. 

Example

Every time you tweak your question, you're getting closer to a good question, and every time you tweak your thesis, you're getting closer to an authentic answer to the question. But does every source address your question? Does it support your burgeoning thesis? Are these in flux during the whole process? See the graphic above. Even as you're writing your paper (Step 8), you may be evaluating sources and developing your thesis. Let's try this.

Sample Research Question:  "Is unpasteurized organic bovine milk unhealthy for immunocompromised boys under 12?"
Thesis: Unpasteurized organic bovine milk is unhealthy for immunocompromised boys under 12.

Issue #1: Has the author betrayed a bias by phrasing the question with the word "unhealthy"? Is this what they expect to find?

Issue #2: The first source argues that there is no evidence that bovine milk is healthy for any child. Is this a good source? No. Saying the issue is inconclusive does not lend weight to the thesis. If you change the thesis to inconclusive, is this really a research question, if all sources lead to the same conclusion?

Issue #3: The second source argues that in a study of 13 people in Albania, unpasteurized milk of all kinds was harmful to immunocompromised children under 18. Is this a good source? Not really. It's a small sample. What if the 13 children -- which is not a strong sample size -- were all girls? Mostly girls? Six of them were girls? The age range is off as well.

Issue #4: The third source says that all children under 12 with Hashimoto's drinking unpasteurized milk of any kind is dangerous. If this is a broad category (all children), it includes boys. And the field (unpasteurized milk of any kind) certainly includes unpasteurized organic bovine milk. So far, it looks good. Moreover, Hashimoto's is an auto-immune disorder. That means children with Hashimoto's are immunocompromised. Doesn't it? No, it doesn't. People of any age with Hashimoto's are not considered immunocompromised by the American Medical Association.

Issue #5: The fourth source claims that boys under 12 who consume unpasteurized organic bovine milk are at a higher risk of developing cancerous brain tumors. Jackpot! Well, not for milk-loving boys! You slide this right into your folder. Perfect. Wait a minute. You find that the increased risk is within the margin of error, and that it was mainly boys with uncompromised immune systems that were adversely affected.

We can go on forever with this, but you clearly get the idea. What can you do? You can tweak your question to be about Hashimoto's, particularly if you find a lot of relevant information about this particular disease. You can tweak other variables. 

What you DO NOT WANT TO DO is misrepresent the findings of researchers. This is academic dishonesty.