Improving the quality of Research through Personalization, Autonomy, Reflection and Completion

Introduction

Scientific inquiry still represents the essence of science. But what leads to good scientific inquiry resulting in excellent research outputs leaving behind a legacy and an impact on the world? Obviously, it must be that research that has the most insightful reach. Examples of such research are the research done by Nobel Laureates. When asking what advice they would like to give to the youth with regards to research the Nobel Laureates – Ciechanover, Hershko, Gross, Jelinek, Wilczek, Buck, Axel and Chauvin – responses can be summerised as:

• Try to ask the important question;

• Investigate something novel;

• Study something that fascinates or obsessed you;

• Think about what nature reveals to you;

• Think independently;

• Focus on those things you don’t understand as an individual;

• Don’t investigate the things that falls within the mainstream of research; and

• Drive the process to fulfillment.

The above clearly gives an indication that researchers should strive to investigate something that is a personal concern and that that bears the characteristics of novelty, authenticity and completeness. This of course in the words of Zion and Slezak (2005) is a much more challenging endeavor than guided inquiry.

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to deduct general research guidelines that can be offered to researchers to enhance the quality of research outputs based upon advice provide by leading researchers in the world.

Literature Review

Based upon the advise provided by the Nobel laureates the researcher will, based on a literature review, translate the concepts into general research educational principles.

1. Investigate something novel and that obsessed the researcher: Personal interest

Novelty is often discovered by investigating the other side of the coin of popular research. Research knowledge can then be gradually developed and accumulated over time by focusing on fine detail of all research work, reading, the matching conclusions and identifying contradictions.
Research done by Amara and Landry that researchers and firms that have access to a larger variety of sources of information enhances the chances of novelty in research.

2. Think independently: Autonomous inquiry

To be able to think independently implies that the researcher should be engage in a constructive manner in the research process, individually or in a group and be able to influence decisions regarding the content and direction of the research. This however, according to Zion and Slezak (2005) should be based upon the principles of “planfulness” in research activities, ability to internalize the evaluation process, openness to experience, flexibility in approach and autonomy in the setting of research goals and the selection of appropriate methods to conduct the inquiry. A further pre-condition is that the researcher should be disciplinary literate. The better the researcher master the disciplinary aspects of the field of study, the better the chances of doing good inquiry.

3. Think about what nature reveals: Reflection

Critical and reflective thinking is required with regards to what to believe, what to do and whether the results obtained were reasonable. When unexpected results are obtained, the researcher should search further to find possible explanations thereof. This may amongst others require an investment in enhancing the available infrastructure for conducting more sophisticated inquiry or probing for answers from literature or from other researchers or experts in the field. If however the unexpected results were caused by an error in approach, it remains the duty of the researcher to investigate where things went wrong and then repeat the research to test the reliability of data obtained.

To reflect on what nature reveals critical milestones are required in every research investigation whereby the performance of the research can be evaluated. At all critical milestones of the research programme the researcher needs to explore what new territories of scientific discovery are opening up and how it could benefit society in general. Further, has the research aim been met in full and is the programme still on the right track? It is also of outmost importance to determine whether the researcher has the capabilities to support or extend the research potential or to consider sourcing-in more expertise to realize the full potential of the research.

4. Drive the process to fulfillment: Completeness

To drive the research process to completeness requires a commitment on a personal and professional level for better or for worse (Burns, 2004) as the researcher set in motion a process of discovery, validation, verification, significance and suitability. Too often researchers stop to early before the real breakthrough is made. Perhaps, the last two concepts, suitability and significance, which often play the biggest role in determining the eventual status of research, are ignored in the planning and execution phases of the research project. Suitability of research refers according to Hornbaek (2006) to “the capability to be used by humans easily and effectively”. In this regard the researcher should consider questions like:

• Are the results obtained accurate enough to be used by others;

• Are the results complete enough to be properly understood by other users;

• Are the quality of results of such a nature that others would like to use it?; and

• Will the potential users have confidence in the accuracy of the results obtained?

Significance of the research is usually determined by (Burns, 2004):

• The level to which the scientific inquiry fit and contribute to the traditional scholarly traditions of the discipline in terms of ethos, discourse and discovery;

• The level to which findings and conclusions are validated and verified by applying forever improving and dynamic researchs designs and methodologies;

• The systemic way in which literature are used to support research findings and to inform the research process; and

• The originality or novelty of the research as it opens new and better ways of knowing and understanding.

Conclusion

Winning research largely depends on new insights created by the research and the added value it creates to society in general. Based upon the assumption that the researcher has mastered the skills of research design and methodology, focusing on personalization of the research interest, autonomous thinking, critical reflection on the discourse of the research and ensuring that the research fulfill all the requirements of completeness, may greatly enhance the quality and value of a research programme.

Bibliography

Amara, N. & Landry, R. 2005. Sources of information as determinants of novelty of innovation in manufacturing firms: evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada innovation survey. Technovation. 25:245-259.

Burns, H. 2004. Four dimensions of significance: Tradition, method, theory, originality. Computers and Composition. 21:5-13.

Hornbaek, K. 2006. Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal Human-Computer Studies. 64:79-102.

Numprasertchai, S & Igel, B. 2005. Managing knowledge through collaboration: multiple case studies of managing research in university laboratories in Thailand. Technovation. 25:1173-1182.

Zion, M. & Slezak, M. 2005. It takes two to tango: In dynamic inquiry, the self-directed student acts in association with the facilitator teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education. 21:875-894.

Jan Grundling is the Head of the Centre for Entrepreneurship, Tshwane Universityof Technology, South Africa.

Related articles