Comprehensive Guide to Academic Research

[Papa Liam 960]

The Comprehensive Guide

to Academic Research

By Dr. Elibar’Indor Hilea

Northern Geographic Society Press

81 S.E.

---

       Almaris is currently in the genesis of an academic renaissance, a rebirth in scholarly thinking and infrastructure which has redefined the livelihoods of those inclined to conduct academic research. With the recent birth and revival of multiple Almarian academic institutions – the Northern Geographic Society, the Vortician Society of Scholars & Artisans, the Arcanic Celian Academy, and the Vienne Institute – the second era marks a transition towards the formalization of academia and an increase in those pursuing scholarly endeavors. I write the preamble to this guide as the Chairman and founder of the Congress of Scholars, acknowledging that our recent success has been attributed to the academic works of our accredited doctoral members. With the recent influx of doctoral students and submissions for the Celestine Herbert Award, I have taken it upon myself to write a basic guide to conduct academic writing in an effort to demystify research. This guide is available to the common layman, but is intended for use by doctoral students in the Congress of Scholars.

 

Objectives of Academic Research:

Spoiler

       The scope of academic research is muddied in the eyes of the public. “Research” does not refer merely to those who throw on lab coats and mix different alchemical ingredients to solicit chemical reactions (though, that does describe some researchers). Rather, academic research is defined by the expansion and creation of knowledge, pushing the limits of what we collectively know to expand our current understanding of the world. True, “research” may be conducted by alchemists or chemists mixing ingredients in a lab, but it may also be conducted by historians, archaeologists, mathematicians, musicologists, economists, geologists, linguists and beyond. Any academic discipline is eligible to conduct research, and the purpose of their contributions is to create new knowledge. By proxy, the purpose of the doctoral degree is to certify that one has obtained the proper training to continually challenge the barriers of our limited knowledge, dedicating their livelihood to its expansion.

 

       

Those who conduct academic research maintain two primary objectives which define the quality of their research: precision and novelty. Precision refers to the academic rigor of the author’s research and outcomes. Does the author provide empirically accurate evidence to support their claims? Is the methodology they have employed a sound one which can withstand criticisms from others in their field? The presentation of information in an academic study should be logical, and the conclusions drawn should be rational. Novelty is used as a synonym for originality, in that academic research should present new knowledge to the world, no matter how small that contribution of knowledge may be. “Novel” research is presented either with original research findings (where one collects the data themselves and offers their analysis on the data collected), by synthesizing a new perspective on currently existing literature (where one uses prior publications to create an original outlook on the topic), or a combination of both. When one hears “novelty,” they should replace it in their heads with “original contributions to the academic field.” To be a researcher is to be an inventor, and our inventions manifest as words on paper.

       Further, there are two “flavors” of academic research often conducted by scholars. The most common is the creation of a direct research question, presenting an academic inquiry to be answered in the literature (even if the question itself isn’t answered in its entirety). In creating a research question, the inquiry is clearly stated somewhere in the academic article, most commonly in the introduction. I reference my own literature here as an example, wherein I ask “How can domestic currencies alienate nations from international markets?” In the article, a conclusion is reached based on the empirical evidence presented in the rest of the essay, leading to a rational answer (even if the answer is flawed, the methodology used to reach the answer is sound). The most common alternative to this empirically-based model of inquiry is the expository study. Some scholars instead opt to write expository studies wherein they explore the various dimensions and facets related to a research topic, rather than asking a question. These expository studies are also perfectly valid contributions to academics, so long as they are both novel and precise. A notable contribution in the field of zoology and biology from Dr. Elizaveta Alban makes use of the expository style. Rather than asking and answering a research question, Dr. Alban explores the topic of creatures in Almaris, accompanied by her own analyses. Cataloging creatures and their typologies does not answer an inquiry, but explores a general topic. Both “flavors” of academic research offer valid contributions to academia.

       The scope of the research inquiry presented is also critical to the objectives of academic research, for the author has to synthesize a question that is not too broad as to create overgeneralized statements, but also not too narrow as to limit the availability of their data (or to make an insignificant contribution to their field). It is left to the discretion of the author to find a sufficient medium.

 

 

       The above visual aid is meant to help one envision how specific a research question ought to be. Academic fields of research are often divided into very broad categories which encapsulate a range of subdisciplines, and sometimes, these subdisciplines have little in common. Envision academic disciplines as the whole; envision subdisciplines as a part of that whole, and your research focus as a fraction of that part. To ensure the research question is specific enough, ensure that the research question is not creating an inquiry into the entire field of study. “What is the void” is a broad question which cannot be accurately answered in the scope of a single research article (and it may be a suitable topic for introductory textbooks or a doctoral thesis, but not a research article). Instead, asking a question such as “To what extent do air evocationists and earth evocationists differ in the amount of mana they draw from the Void” may provide a higher degree of specificity to make a substantial contribution to the field (Forgive my poor example, I am not a scholar of the arcane). Do keep in mind that the degree of specificity is left to the discretion of the author and that these are not steadfast rules for determining the scope of a research question.

 

Structure of Research Articles:

Spoiler

       How should the author convey data and information to the researcher? Much like the distinctions between narrow and broad scopes of research, the decision of how to structure a research article is often left to the discretion of the author, though there is a generic framework which can assist the author. Article structure is a means of conveying information to the reader. As such, the most important and paramount goal of research article structure is to present information in a logical sequence. The result is a natural progression which begins with an introductory paragraph, the body of text presenting the research itself, and a conclusion section, all surmised by an abstract to be presented at the head of the article. The introduction and conclusion sections are standard across academic fields, but the bulk of the publication – the writing that goes in between – may differ between academic fields. Those who employ the natural sciences and conduct clinical or lab experiments may be conveying primary data as the subject of their research. As such, it may be appropriate to include sections on research methodology, results, and a “discussion” section to convey the significance of the findings and how it relates to the rest of the academic field. In the humanities where physical experiments are uncommon, literature reviews and synopses of other works as a context to one’s own may be a crucial section to include.

 

Examples of article structure in each discipline are as follows;

 

Natural Sciences:

 

Introduction > Literature Review > Methodology > Results > Discussion > Conclusion

 

Humanities & Social Sciences:

 

Introductions > Literature Review > Discussion > Conclusion

 

       Of course, literature reviews may also be important to include in the natural sciences, just as a methodology section may be important to include in a study on the humanities or social sciences; there is no steadfast rule. The most important detail when creating a research article is that the information is presented in a logical fashion, to convey the data and information in a way that is palatable to the reader.

Scholars should also become accustomed to citing their sources when writing academic pieces of literature. Though this is far from becoming standard in the academic world, rigorous academic works ought to credit the original authors when information is drawn from a source other than the author’s original works. Using another author’s work in one’s own without proper credit is known in the academic world as “plagiarism.” Some scholars have created citation style guides to make it easier for budding academics to avoid plagiarism. Such citation styles include Indor’s VSSA style, or Napier’s NGSC style. While proper citations are not yet commonplace in academic writing, those who do make use of citations will prove themselves to be advanced compared to other novice scholars.

 

 

Research Methodologies:

Spoiler

       Methodologies to conduct research itself is an ever-evolving topic subject to criticisms and inquiry from all facets of academic. The type of methodology used to conduct academic research also differs by the intent of the research itself. Does your study require qualitative or quantitative data? What practices will be used to obtain such data? How will the researcher ensure that the data is accurate? No matter the methodology used to collect data, the researcher should convey the methods used to the reader. Articles should be transparent and provide full information to the point where the reader could plausibly replicate the study.

       The “Scientific Method” or the “Scientific Way” refers to the empirical methodology used by scientists to conduct trials and gather data. There is no consensus among academics to address the methodology used to collect data, only that a methodology is needed. Two authors who have already written extensively on the topic – April Vallei’onn and Maenor Aildhuin – complement each other quite well to create a holistic scientific method for conducting research. Vallei’onn’s work details the “Intellectual Process” by which researchers should empirically test a given hypothesis. 

 

 

       Vallei’onn’s literature describes the process as beginning with the formulation of a research question to be answered, progressing to background research (in the context of a research article, we would refer to this as a “literature review”), the establishment of a hypothesis (i.e. what is the researcher’s contextualized yet unproven theory), the creation of a procedure to test the hypothesis, and a conclusion. Vallei’onn goes into extensive detail in their literature, describing the individual components of each step. Aildhuin’s works (found in the NGS Karosgard library) describes the “Scientific Way,” and rather than providing a sequence to conduct scientific research, the Scientific Way instead describes principles to abide by while conducting research. Aildhuin describes inquiry as the first of four principles to be held constant by a researcher; they should “question everything.” Further, they describe the value of experimentation and “seeing for yourself” as a crucial component of research, implying that empiricisms and deriving information from logic are preferable to unfounded assumptions. Thirdly, they vaguely describe the “pursuit of truth” in following the evidence to a natural conclusion, even if the conclusion is unfavorable. This implies that researchers should possess a high degree of honesty. Should the evidence disprove or conflict with a given theory, then either the evidence was collected using a faulty methodology or the theory itself is flawed. The fourth element is titled “Conclusion & Report,” though I find that what Aildhuin more aptly describes is a sense of open-mindedness and a duty to seek out knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Accepting criticisms from other scholars, debating literature in good faith, spreading your works across the realm and creating academic literature for no other purpose than to make new discoveries is what defines a researcher.

       Authors may be inclined to disagree with this process, either in part or in full. By no means is the Vallei’onn-Aildhuin model the only method for conducting scientific research, but it does embody many of the traits held by principled researchers when conducting experiments. Other academics are encouraged to critique, expand upon, and improve this model to ensure that future scholars have sound methodologies when collecting research data.