During Ylva Fernaeus lecture she raised this question: What made this project into research? I answered that the fact that it had been presented in a research paper and on a scientific conference made it into research. This might sound like avoiding the question but I think it is the proper view on research (and science). During the seminar with Leif Dahlberg we discussed what was and wasn't art. One common criterion for art states that anything is art that is presented within the white walls of the gallery, or in a more general sense, anything that is presented within an art context. I believe that this kind of pragmatic criterion might be used for science as well: research is anything presented within a research context. In a more specific sense a research paper can be considered to be research if it meets the criteria of some research journal or conference.
During Haibo Li's lecture he talked about ANOVA. This made me think about what I am missing in this course: actual methods that we may use in our future research. I know these kinds of statistical methods by their names and that they are commonly used but I do not know how to use them. It would be really interesting to learn how to go about when you want to find out whether your findings have significance or not. What are the criteria? In the statistics course we learned how statistics work in theory but not how to apply them in reality. I guess I will have to read about this on my own...
Hej Ragnar!
SvaraRaderaI understood what Ylva meant by saying that this project was made into research because it presented something new based on what was presented in existing literature and on existing research, but I have to note that I agreed with your comment on that being in a research paper and on scientific conferences makes something into research. And I really liked how you explained that the definition of research depends on the pragmatic criterion.