#PLENK2010 Research

Jenny writes in her post on research, technology and networks

“This indicates that good research has been and continues to be published without the Web or being networked. I think we need to think more/be more explicit about what might be lost by giving up this ‘traditional’ system and more explicit about what we can gain by being more ‘innovative’.”
What would be the criteria of “good research”?
What would be lost? Would they be?
(a) grants – one needs to go through the Research Council, which may or may not approve research to be open (due to a loss of control over the research)
(b) validation – lack of governing bodies other than the community and researchers.
(c) privacy and privy of research
(d) academic rigor (too many voices & diversity of views, too few consensus if community review are used)
(e) autonomy of researchers in the research planning & process
(f) standards – lack of rigorous standard of measures on research “quality”
(g) traceability – unless the research is open to the public and community, it could be difficult to trace the source of information, and thus lacking in credibility in resources employed
(h) publication support – due to the publication on blogs or media, the researcher may not be given enough support for publication with the publisher
(i) incentive – the monetary reward that may derive from the publication in books or research journal (as a patent or artefact under the name of the researchers)
What we can gain by being more innovative in research?
(a) Openness – Opening the research to the community invites more people interested in the research to actively engage and participate in both learning and research
(b) Validation – using a community approach to research could allow diversity of opinions to be heard, which are important in academic discourse. It could further validate the research findings and analysis, enhancing the quality of the research
(c) Standards – a community approach towards research would stimulate members to discuss and develop standards which are appropriate to the research. Such emergence of standards would allow for the Wisdom of Crowds to be considered
(d) Publication – the publication of research papers on blogs and media promote the openness in research
(e) Incentive – the reward is more of an intrinsic nature for the researchers and the community, and it could also be a win-win situation for all parties.
(f) New approaches to collaborative researches – by being more open and innovative in research, researchers could also collaborate and cooperate with other researchers in the research networks. This would lead to the development of collaborative research communities and consortium.
These are just my crude ideas on research. I need your help in refining them. Feedback is welcome.

Thanks Jenny for the fruitful questions.
John