The Challenges of Research

 I have been talking more and more about my dissertation process as I finish up my Ph.D., and in doing so there are often some practical tips I wish to share.  One of these is in regard to my own approach to research, and I thought I would talk about that today.

The largest part of doing a dissertation - and indeed, any type of research project - is the actual research.  Research is important as it does provide vetting for your own work, and it is integral to not just bandy about theories without evidence to back it up.  If one does that, then it ceases to be research and becomes editorializing.  Editorializing has its place as well obviously, but if you are engaging in academic writing, editorializing is looked down upon.  Therefore, researching the topic is integral to producing work on it. 

That being said, the research process can be murky.  Broadly, there are two types of source material used in doctoral-level research in particular - primary sources and secondary sources.  Primary sources are those written by the subjects of the research themselves, and can be decades or even centuries old.  Many universities require language proficiency, as many of this category of sources are often not in English.  Speaking of editorializing, much primary source material is editorial in nature, as it houses the worldview of the original author.  While some primary source material can be more academic in nature, it is not necessary in this case.  Secondary sources are those written by others about the subject, and they are often researched themselves and can be of an academic nature.  A subcategory of these are what is called "peer-reviewed" sources, and in all honesty those change over time.  I am a bit adverse to peer-reviewed sources because in many cases the "peers" reviewing them are of a particular bias, and thus little objectivity exists in peer review.  You have heard me sound off on academic societies before about this, and in all honesty the modern process of "peer review" is somewhat elitist - if you don't share the worldview of the reviewer, you are blackballed from scholarly discourse.  This reflects generally on the polarization and politicization of much of academia in recent years.  If good peer-reviewed sources are found, then by all means prioritize them.  But, I also feel these sources need to be vetted before they are utilized, as in general they can be more platform pieces rather than objective academic writing.  That is my perspective on peer-review.

And, this leads to the second part of this discussion as to what secondary sources are to be used?  In general, books are directed to one of two audiences - academic/scholarly and popular.  What is often meant for popular reading is often also not looked upon as serious literature in academic circles, and thus its use in research is often discouraged.  However, at times those popular sources may actually be of value, because although not geared toward an academic audience nor are they peer-reviewed, they can prove useful for finding primary source material as well as maybe arguments within the text of your own research showing how a certain question on an issue is relevant to address.  There are some of these popular sources which are, for lack of a better term, somewhat speculative or even conspiratorial in nature.  When it comes to World War II history in particular, there are a lot of theories about Nazis and other issues which can be a bit outlandish at worse, or they may be factual in substance but perhaps not researched enough to make them more attractive to academics.  I use these sources all the time, and over the years I have learned how to use them properly.  Sources like that are gold mines for finding primary source material, they pose interesting questions that merit further examination, and they also are good for getting demographic information such as birth and death dates of individuals central to one's own research.  The rule of thumb for using such sources however is to try to track down and read for yourself the primary sources they reference, as more than likely the author may have interpreted things to reflect their own biases.  I am not going to be harsh on authors for doing that, as I have done it too on occasion, but in empirical-based academic research, it is important to cite just the information as stated and not try to isogete it.  That is also a good rule of thumb for studying Scripture as well - a lot of heresies over the centuries could have been averted had there not been any reading into the text as written.  That being said, let's make a final couple of conclusions.

Reading a popular source that has a bias in its writing is OK in and of itself - the author may actually be correct in what they conclude, but their premise needs to be backed up and also it needs to be verified by the primary source material they themselves use.  I have a distant relative, Perry Stone, who is a very well-known Pentecostal televangelist.  I know Perry's work well, and in many cases it has inspired me personally. But a weakness in Perry's writing is that he tends to throw out things in what he says without having proper back-up for his statements.  That naturally has gotten him into trouble on occasion, and I myself have called him on a couple of things too.  Perry is intelligent for sure, and I do believe some of the things he says and writes is inspirational.  However, Perry needs to be a bit less sloppy and more responsible when doing his homework on these things. But, I also still enjoy reading some of his stuff, as it does motivate me to look into certain topics more, and often I find a more detailed examination to the topic itself. I write this to academics in particular - do not be too quick to dismiss the value of popular literature, as in its context it can also be a useful tool. 

Thank you for allowing me to share briefly, and that tells you a little more of my own journey as an academic writer as well.  See you soon.