Academic research: musings

Bob A · 23rd September 2021, 07:06 AM

The question of the value and nature of research, as applied to representative depictions of weapons for example, is more complex than it might appear.

Research, embodying observation leading to formulating a question as a hypothesis, and subsequently devising a method of testing the hypothesis, is a focused and necessarily narrow approach as a tool for expanding knowledge. A body of prior knowledge is implicit in its usage, distilled down from a much broader palette of information and observation: hence "re-search" is derived from "search". Medical research is science; the practice of medicine is aptly called an art.

One can speak of historical research, but this is dependent on possibly fallible and certainly biased information; it lacks the rigor of hard science, and deals with issues and information that is more vague and suspect as one goes further into the past. The farther we depart form that which can be measured and quantified, the farther we are separated from what might be described as "truth" or perhaps "reality."

Mathematics exists as pure abstraction, which nevertheless can map congruencies or corepondences in what we see as "reality," and has in fact been the precursor of the real, as mathematical abstractions have led physical science into the discovery of the hidden realities of the physical world. So-called "pure" mathematics has been found useful as a descriptor of phenomena completely unsuspected or unknown to the mathematician engaged in symbol manipulation for its own sake.

It seems therefore that the scientific method is an exquisite tool for seeking answers to problems, or questions, if one prefers, but a broad and global scope encompassing seemingly unrelated phenomena and discovering implicit patterns, which might ultimately provide scope for research, might better be viewed as "art."

Arts and sciences inform and cross-pollinate each other, and both would appear necessary to the process of discovery; essentially search and research are complementary tools in this endeavor.

Or so my musings would lead me to opine, when considering the musings of others on the topic.

Ren Ren · 23rd September 2021, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob A

It seems therefore that the scientific method is an exquisite tool for seeking answers to problems, or questions, if one prefers, but a broad and global scope encompassing seemingly unrelated phenomena and discovering implicit patterns, which might ultimately provide scope for research, might better be viewed as "art."

I completely agree!

A. G. Maisey · 23rd September 2021, 09:41 AM

That's a nice statement in support of the scientific method Bob, and I doubt that anybody would want to debate what you have put forward, but I will offer this:-

no hypothesis can be put forward without a question that needs an answer

the question does not come from research, it comes from experience and rational thought

once the hypothesis has been stated, that is when the research begins, and that research might result in a theory

Ian · 23rd September 2021, 02:25 PM

Just a few disconnected thoughts to throw into the pot.

What Ariel and Bob have so succinctly described is the Hypothetico-Deductive (H-D) model of research that was proposed in the 19th C and developed by Carl Popper and others. It stands in opposition to what had gone before, which was essentially an Inductive method. The latter basically consisted of finding as much data as possible about something and then drawing conclusions from those observations. What distinguished the H-D model from the inductive model is the testing of a specific prior hypothesis with the collection of data to test a particular question.

If the data we collect to test the hypothesis (i.e., the question being asked) does not refute it, then the hypothesis stands until such time someone comes along with a better set of data that negate it. Many times investigators are wedded to a certain hypothesis and are reluctant to let it go, even when the data suggest they should. After all, many reputations are built on proposing new hypotheses and defending them against all comers. The famous differences between Einstein and Nils Bohr concerning quantum mechanics, and the uncertain behavior of key components of matter, illustrate how even a great scientist and thinker like Einstein can be wrong and get stuck in old ideas.

Much of what we discuss on the Forums can be classed as inductive reasoning. We show a lot of pictures, draw analogies between different items, and try to construct a story to fit the observations. Many of our discussions raise more questions than they answer. Such questions could be considered the genesis of hypotheses, but we lack the ability to test those ideas in a meaningful manner. Designing a set of actions (experiments) to test an hypothesis effectively can be difficult and in some cases impossible. Bob has already alluded to the difficulties of historical research.

Social scientists (as distinct from physical or biomedical scientists) encounter these problems frequently in their research. Carefully controlled studies with well defined groups are difficult when dealing with ordinary human beings going about their lives. Anthropologists, ethnologists, sociologists, behavioral scientists, etc. have to be creative in designing studies to test their hypotheses. In many ways, their job is harder than physical and biomedical researchers.

Studying the history and use of weapons seems more akin to social sciences than the physical or biomedical sciences, especially when we consider the culture of the populations using these weapons. One of the key elements of understanding the use and place of weapons within a culture necessarily draws on an understanding of ethnography and sociology within the native population. People within those groups rightly get upset with westerners who try to draw conclusions without carefully involving the groups under study. Techniques for obtaining information from such groups does not necessarily involve a structured formal questionnaire, but rather loosely structured interviews with key informants and other members of the community. All communications need to be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, and so on.

Such techniques are often derided by "hard scientists" as being empirical and poorly controlled, with a high likelihood of bias. There may be some truth to that. However, the types of rigor and control that are used by many physical and biomedical scientists are often not feasible for the social scientist—they can only use the tools they have.

What does this have to do with the question at hand? Mahratt proposed in another thread that one could use old pictures, drawings, and other art works to define who wore, and presumably used, the khanjarli. Jim provided some clues based on historical records for where to look, and we would expect to see some pictorial evidence to support his research. What we have is Jim creating an hypothesis that can be tested by searching for photographic or artistic evidence in support of that.

That's how the H-D method works.

ariel · 23rd September 2021, 03:01 PM

Completely agree.
There are areas where research is straightforward and fully dependable on experimentally- provable data : " let's remove X and see what happens"
Study of weapons cannot employ experiments: it is strictly observational. It is much more tentative and more difficult to conduct.

But the principles of the two are by and large the same: noticing or suspecting something unusual or different, asking is it interesting and/or important, if not,- forgetting it, if yes - asking a question/hypothesis (why? where? when?), collecting material and published information, discussing the results without bias and providing an answer.

Without absorbing and rigorously employing general principles of research or, worse of, without dedicated training in these basic principles, book markets are getting flooded by amateurish publications that are full of errors, i.e. at the best colorful coffee table volumes, and at the worst - sources of misleading information for generations.
The " half-life of information" is measured in years. It is getting shorter, but still long enough to impress tyros and influence even professionals. Regretfully, in all our different areas of interest ( and, occasionally, competence, Alan Maisey and Albert van Zonneveld being an example in Indonesian, a strong group in Filipino, Elgood in Indian, Rivkin in Caucasian etc.), we all know such publications.

Jim McDougall · 23rd September 2021, 06:22 PM

Ian, I want to thank you for this wonderfully explained synopsis of these seemingly complex research systems, which even I, as a lay person, can understand. As a non-academic, that is without training in advanced educational context, I have always been fascinated by research, mostly out of inate curiosity, so I do not know the formal protocols.

However what I consider my 'method' is that of ratiocination, and as I have mentioned, the use of 'historical detection' as that is the primary field in which I study. I agree that the study of weapons is certainly more aligned with social sciences, that is of course anthropology, ethnography and of course history.

In the study of arms, most published references focus on typology, categorization and classification, along with varying degree of historical context. In virtually all references I have known, the authors note in introductions that not only do they expect corrections and rebuttal, but encourage it, hoping for furthering the core of knowledge.

There are however other aspects which are often, if not typically, avoided, in these references. These are the areas which are subjective, such as with metaphysics, superstition, symbolism and such features which occur in elements of weaponry. As these areas are nearly always subjective, that is, cannot be proven empirically. These therefore, are not academically sound and avoided in these arms references, at least usually. In some cases there are nominal allusions to these areas, but certain authors have, rather boldly, delved into such topics.

As I have suggested, such topics can be reasonably addressed, in my opinion even academically, as long as substantial transparency is observed, and adamant or conclusive statements are avoided.

I like the descriptions of these academic processes and systems of research defined in technical terms, as it sort of puts structure into the methods many or even most of us may use in some manner.

kronckew · 23rd September 2021, 07:25 PM

Y'all touched on photos being 'staged'. Photographers were not above moving bodies and equipment around to suit the tale they wanted to tell their viewers. Portrait Photographers were known to move or add weapons from their own stock of weapons. Person wears a knife behind his back? move it to the front for the photo. Didn't bring your sword? Here' use mine. That baldric doesn't have the right look? here, let me adjust it for you so we can see it better. Here, put this turnban on, makes you look exotic. rembrant had a lrge sharp pointy thing collection, and added bits from it to his portrait where he though they would look good, not where the portrayed actually had them, or even not caring if they didn't own or use one like that.

Photos show you what the photographers wanted you to see. They were not anthropological records, but for entertaining the readers back home, and the more pizazz and flamboyancy, the easier it was to make money from them.Useful, but of varying degrees of accuracy. As in all things, Caveat Emptor.

A. G. Maisey · 24th September 2021, 01:52 AM

Ariel opened his "musings" comments with a statement:-

"All scientific investigations are hypothesis driven."

The title of this thread that we are contributing to is:-

"Academic research: musings"

From these two ideas I have assumed that Ariel was thinking in a scientific and/or academic way when he wrote his comments.

Ariel's opening comments focused rather strongly on photographic data and I believe the idea or ideas behind his comments were directed at a couple of questions, that I understand to be:-

a) just how reliable are photographs of people and things from foreign places and past times in demonstrating anything of value to an understanding of those people and things that existed in those foreign places and past times?

b) even if some reliability of the photographic information can be demonstrated, is that information important?

Ariel, if my understanding of that which you have written is incorrect I would appreciate your correction. It is important to understand how a message is to be understood before a relevant response can be written.

But whether or not I do clearly understand your message, I feel inclined to write a response in any case.

Ariel's comment that "All scientific investigations are hypothesis driven" is demonstrably true.

But before the hypothesis can exist there must be a question, the hypothesis itself is not a question, although it may generate questions, a hypothesis is an assumption, or a proposition, or an educated guess that forms the basis for investigation by way of experiment, or observation, or other means with the objective to determine the truth or untruth of the assumption proposed by the hypothesis.

It is this phase of testing and investigation that is driven by the hypothesis, and this testing and investigation is that which may be termed "academic research". Prior to the construction of the hypothesis, no actual "research", as the word is understood in a scientific/academic context, was performed.

Ariel has said just this in his statement quoted above.

The addition of the adjective "academic" imparts a defined meaning to the word "research". Academic research does not necessarily imply that this "academic" research is in fact "scientific" research. Academic research implies the use of a system to investigate a defined matter with the objective of dealing with that matter, if the system used to perform the investigation is the Scientific Method, then that academic research also becomes Scientific Research.

The testing of a hypothesis might result in that hypothesis being able to be supported by things that are known, or assumed, to be fact. If this should occur, then the hypothesis has generated a principle that explains something, and that principle then can be regarded as a theory. A theory must be able to be defended, a hypothesis does not need to be defended, its reason for being is that the idea it encapsulates is something that can be questioned, investigated, and tested.

In my understanding, Ariel has attempted to gently demonstrate that all "research" is not "scientific/academic research", and in any case the results that might be produced even from "scientific/academic research" are not necessarily important.

In other words, all "research" is not equal, nor for that matter is it sufficiently important to be necessary.

However, this Forum does not present itself as an academic nor as a scientific Forum. My own understanding of the character of this Forum is that it is a place for discussion. That discussion might be based upon "research" as research is understood in general or colloquial terms. The discussion that ensues from this non-scientific research could perhaps generate a question that leads to the construction of a hypothesis, which in turn might eventually produce a principle and that principle could well become a theory.

As I have previously stated, I am not an academic, nor am I a scientist. My own profession is principally concerned with analysis and the identification of risk. In exercise of this capacity I have been employed by academics, scientists, and others to identify risk and flaws in work that they have done, work that they are now doing, and work which they wish to undertake in the future. Part of the system upon which practice of my profession is based is the gathering of information, this is the initial phase of any investigation or analysis. If I consider this Forum and the discussions that take place here, I come to the opinion that it is firmly fixed into the information gathering phase of any further investigation into the topics discussed. Those discussions can sometimes become a foundation stone in an investigation.

As a part of information gathering, I would suggest that the comments posted to discussions in this Forum do not need to be either scientific or academic in nature.

As to how important something might be, well, to determine that we probably need to place the concept of "importance" into its related context:- things that are important to a person, or to a field of knowledge, could well be totally unimportant to another person, or field of knowledge.

It is absolutely certain that academic research and the related scientific method of investigation have a place in the world at large, but I wonder how much of a place either might have in a Forum that to me, appears to be dedicated to ongoing, open discussion.

Bob A · 23rd September 2021, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

That's a nice statement in support of the scientific method Bob, and I doubt that anybody would want to debate what you have put forward, but I will offer this:-

no hypothesis can be put forward without a question that needs an answer

the question does not come from research, it comes from experience and rational thought

once the hypothesis has been stated, that is when the research begins, and that research might result in a theory

I absolutely agree, Alan.

I might not have made myself entirely clear, but I attempted to indicate that the more global or oceanic examination, which would correspond to Ian's well-stated concept of induction, is experiential in nature.

Correspondences can be induced, but such induction depends on a broad range of experience ranging over as wide a field of observation as the ability of the observer will allow. This "ability" includes both the capacity of the observer, and the availability and scope of that which is observed.

I think we're talking about the same thing, expressed through different minds and verbal filters.

23rd September 2021, 09:41 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	That's a nice statement in support of the scientific method Bob, and I doubt that anybody would want to debate what you have put forward, but I will offer this:- no hypothesis can be put forward without a question that needs an answer the question does not come from research, it comes from experience and rational thought once the hypothesis has been stated, that is when the research begins, and that research might result in a theory Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 23rd September 2021 at 10:53 AM. Reason: correction of error

23rd September 2021, 03:01 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Completely agree. There are areas where research is straightforward and fully dependable on experimentally- provable data : " let's remove X and see what happens" Study of weapons cannot employ experiments: it is strictly observational. It is much more tentative and more difficult to conduct. But the principles of the two are by and large the same: noticing or suspecting something unusual or different, asking is it interesting and/or important, if not,- forgetting it, if yes - asking a question/hypothesis (why? where? when?), collecting material and published information, discussing the results without bias and providing an answer. Without absorbing and rigorously employing general principles of research or, worse of, without dedicated training in these basic principles, book markets are getting flooded by amateurish publications that are full of errors, i.e. at the best colorful coffee table volumes, and at the worst - sources of misleading information for generations. The " half-life of information" is measured in years. It is getting shorter, but still long enough to impress tyros and influence even professionals. Regretfully, in all our different areas of interest ( and, occasionally, competence, Alan Maisey and Albert van Zonneveld being an example in Indonesian, a strong group in Filipino, Elgood in Indian, Rivkin in Caucasian etc.), we all know such publications. Last edited by ariel; 23rd September 2021 at 03:18 PM.

23rd September 2021, 07:06 AM	#1
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 435	The question of the value and nature of research, as applied to representative depictions of weapons for example, is more complex than it might appear. Research, embodying observation leading to formulating a question as a hypothesis, and subsequently devising a method of testing the hypothesis, is a focused and necessarily narrow approach as a tool for expanding knowledge. A body of prior knowledge is implicit in its usage, distilled down from a much broader palette of information and observation: hence "re-search" is derived from "search". Medical research is science; the practice of medicine is aptly called an art. One can speak of historical research, but this is dependent on possibly fallible and certainly biased information; it lacks the rigor of hard science, and deals with issues and information that is more vague and suspect as one goes further into the past. The farther we depart form that which can be measured and quantified, the farther we are separated from what might be described as "truth" or perhaps "reality." Mathematics exists as pure abstraction, which nevertheless can map congruencies or corepondences in what we see as "reality," and has in fact been the precursor of the real, as mathematical abstractions have led physical science into the discovery of the hidden realities of the physical world. So-called "pure" mathematics has been found useful as a descriptor of phenomena completely unsuspected or unknown to the mathematician engaged in symbol manipulation for its own sake. It seems therefore that the scientific method is an exquisite tool for seeking answers to problems, or questions, if one prefers, but a broad and global scope encompassing seemingly unrelated phenomena and discovering implicit patterns, which might ultimately provide scope for research, might better be viewed as "art." Arts and sciences inform and cross-pollinate each other, and both would appear necessary to the process of discovery; essentially search and research are complementary tools in this endeavor. Or so my musings would lead me to opine, when considering the musings of others on the topic.

23rd September 2021, 02:25 PM	#4
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Just a few disconnected thoughts to throw into the pot. What Ariel and Bob have so succinctly described is the Hypothetico-Deductive (H-D) model of research that was proposed in the 19th C and developed by Carl Popper and others. It stands in opposition to what had gone before, which was essentially an Inductive method. The latter basically consisted of finding as much data as possible about something and then drawing conclusions from those observations. What distinguished the H-D model from the inductive model is the testing of a specific prior hypothesis with the collection of data to test a particular question. If the data we collect to test the hypothesis (i.e., the question being asked) does not refute it, then the hypothesis stands until such time someone comes along with a better set of data that negate it. Many times investigators are wedded to a certain hypothesis and are reluctant to let it go, even when the data suggest they should. After all, many reputations are built on proposing new hypotheses and defending them against all comers. The famous differences between Einstein and Nils Bohr concerning quantum mechanics, and the uncertain behavior of key components of matter, illustrate how even a great scientist and thinker like Einstein can be wrong and get stuck in old ideas. Much of what we discuss on the Forums can be classed as inductive reasoning. We show a lot of pictures, draw analogies between different items, and try to construct a story to fit the observations. Many of our discussions raise more questions than they answer. Such questions could be considered the genesis of hypotheses, but we lack the ability to test those ideas in a meaningful manner. Designing a set of actions (experiments) to test an hypothesis effectively can be difficult and in some cases impossible. Bob has already alluded to the difficulties of historical research. Social scientists (as distinct from physical or biomedical scientists) encounter these problems frequently in their research. Carefully controlled studies with well defined groups are difficult when dealing with ordinary human beings going about their lives. Anthropologists, ethnologists, sociologists, behavioral scientists, etc. have to be creative in designing studies to test their hypotheses. In many ways, their job is harder than physical and biomedical researchers. Studying the history and use of weapons seems more akin to social sciences than the physical or biomedical sciences, especially when we consider the culture of the populations using these weapons. One of the key elements of understanding the use and place of weapons within a culture necessarily draws on an understanding of ethnography and sociology within the native population. People within those groups rightly get upset with westerners who try to draw conclusions without carefully involving the groups under study. Techniques for obtaining information from such groups does not necessarily involve a structured formal questionnaire, but rather loosely structured interviews with key informants and other members of the community. All communications need to be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, and so on. Such techniques are often derided by "hard scientists" as being empirical and poorly controlled, with a high likelihood of bias. There may be some truth to that. However, the types of rigor and control that are used by many physical and biomedical scientists are often not feasible for the social scientist—they can only use the tools they have. What does this have to do with the question at hand? Mahratt proposed in another thread that one could use old pictures, drawings, and other art works to define who wore, and presumably used, the khanjarli. Jim provided some clues based on historical records for where to look, and we would expect to see some pictorial evidence to support his research. What we have is Jim creating an hypothesis that can be tested by searching for photographic or artistic evidence in support of that. That's how the H-D method works.

23rd September 2021, 06:22 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	Ian, I want to thank you for this wonderfully explained synopsis of these seemingly complex research systems, which even I, as a lay person, can understand. As a non-academic, that is without training in advanced educational context, I have always been fascinated by research, mostly out of inate curiosity, so I do not know the formal protocols. However what I consider my 'method' is that of ratiocination, and as I have mentioned, the use of 'historical detection' as that is the primary field in which I study. I agree that the study of weapons is certainly more aligned with social sciences, that is of course anthropology, ethnography and of course history. In the study of arms, most published references focus on typology, categorization and classification, along with varying degree of historical context. In virtually all references I have known, the authors note in introductions that not only do they expect corrections and rebuttal, but encourage it, hoping for furthering the core of knowledge. There are however other aspects which are often, if not typically, avoided, in these references. These are the areas which are subjective, such as with metaphysics, superstition, symbolism and such features which occur in elements of weaponry. As these areas are nearly always subjective, that is, cannot be proven empirically. These therefore, are not academically sound and avoided in these arms references, at least usually. In some cases there are nominal allusions to these areas, but certain authors have, rather boldly, delved into such topics. As I have suggested, such topics can be reasonably addressed, in my opinion even academically, as long as substantial transparency is observed, and adamant or conclusive statements are avoided. I like the descriptions of these academic processes and systems of research defined in technical terms, as it sort of puts structure into the methods many or even most of us may use in some manner.

23rd September 2021, 07:25 PM	#7
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,215	Y'all touched on photos being 'staged'. Photographers were not above moving bodies and equipment around to suit the tale they wanted to tell their viewers. Portrait Photographers were known to move or add weapons from their own stock of weapons. Person wears a knife behind his back? move it to the front for the photo. Didn't bring your sword? Here' use mine. That baldric doesn't have the right look? here, let me adjust it for you so we can see it better. Here, put this turnban on, makes you look exotic. rembrant had a lrge sharp pointy thing collection, and added bits from it to his portrait where he though they would look good, not where the portrayed actually had them, or even not caring if they didn't own or use one like that. Photos show you what the photographers wanted you to see. They were not anthropological records, but for entertaining the readers back home, and the more pizazz and flamboyancy, the easier it was to make money from them.Useful, but of varying degrees of accuracy. As in all things, Caveat Emptor.

24th September 2021, 01:52 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Ariel opened his "musings" comments with a statement:- "All scientific investigations are hypothesis driven." The title of this thread that we are contributing to is:- "Academic research: musings" From these two ideas I have assumed that Ariel was thinking in a scientific and/or academic way when he wrote his comments. Ariel's opening comments focused rather strongly on photographic data and I believe the idea or ideas behind his comments were directed at a couple of questions, that I understand to be:- a) just how reliable are photographs of people and things from foreign places and past times in demonstrating anything of value to an understanding of those people and things that existed in those foreign places and past times? b) even if some reliability of the photographic information can be demonstrated, is that information important? Ariel, if my understanding of that which you have written is incorrect I would appreciate your correction. It is important to understand how a message is to be understood before a relevant response can be written. But whether or not I do clearly understand your message, I feel inclined to write a response in any case. Ariel's comment that "All scientific investigations are hypothesis driven" is demonstrably true. But before the hypothesis can exist there must be a question, the hypothesis itself is not a question, although it may generate questions, a hypothesis is an assumption, or a proposition, or an educated guess that forms the basis for investigation by way of experiment, or observation, or other means with the objective to determine the truth or untruth of the assumption proposed by the hypothesis. It is this phase of testing and investigation that is driven by the hypothesis, and this testing and investigation is that which may be termed "academic research". Prior to the construction of the hypothesis, no actual "research", as the word is understood in a scientific/academic context, was performed. Ariel has said just this in his statement quoted above. The addition of the adjective "academic" imparts a defined meaning to the word "research". Academic research does not necessarily imply that this "academic" research is in fact "scientific" research. Academic research implies the use of a system to investigate a defined matter with the objective of dealing with that matter, if the system used to perform the investigation is the Scientific Method, then that academic research also becomes Scientific Research. The testing of a hypothesis might result in that hypothesis being able to be supported by things that are known, or assumed, to be fact. If this should occur, then the hypothesis has generated a principle that explains something, and that principle then can be regarded as a theory. A theory must be able to be defended, a hypothesis does not need to be defended, its reason for being is that the idea it encapsulates is something that can be questioned, investigated, and tested. In my understanding, Ariel has attempted to gently demonstrate that all "research" is not "scientific/academic research", and in any case the results that might be produced even from "scientific/academic research" are not necessarily important. In other words, all "research" is not equal, nor for that matter is it sufficiently important to be necessary. However, this Forum does not present itself as an academic nor as a scientific Forum. My own understanding of the character of this Forum is that it is a place for discussion. That discussion might be based upon "research" as research is understood in general or colloquial terms. The discussion that ensues from this non-scientific research could perhaps generate a question that leads to the construction of a hypothesis, which in turn might eventually produce a principle and that principle could well become a theory. As I have previously stated, I am not an academic, nor am I a scientist. My own profession is principally concerned with analysis and the identification of risk. In exercise of this capacity I have been employed by academics, scientists, and others to identify risk and flaws in work that they have done, work that they are now doing, and work which they wish to undertake in the future. Part of the system upon which practice of my profession is based is the gathering of information, this is the initial phase of any investigation or analysis. If I consider this Forum and the discussions that take place here, I come to the opinion that it is firmly fixed into the information gathering phase of any further investigation into the topics discussed. Those discussions can sometimes become a foundation stone in an investigation. As a part of information gathering, I would suggest that the comments posted to discussions in this Forum do not need to be either scientific or academic in nature. As to how important something might be, well, to determine that we probably need to place the concept of "importance" into its related context:- things that are important to a person, or to a field of knowledge, could well be totally unimportant to another person, or field of knowledge. It is absolutely certain that academic research and the related scientific method of investigation have a place in the world at large, but I wonder how much of a place either might have in a Forum that to me, appears to be dedicated to ongoing, open discussion.