Research, Research Papers, Thesis Statements, Conclusions, Intellectual Honesty, and further evidence I'm weird...

Research: What you do to find stuff out.

Research Papers: Vary from field to field, but in some fashion encompass a Thesis Statement, Information gathered and why, Analysis of the Information in relation to the Thesis, and a Conclusion, summarizing the results of the analysis in regard to the Thesis.

Thesis Statement: In Theory, a statement of your Question, and what you believe the Answer to be, and How you intend to research this. What its all about.

Research: Both a What and a How, the Research Topic is the What, Research Methods are the how, with Research Methodology being the precise How in this instance.

Analysis: Rumination over the Information gathered, focused on Organizing the data, Scrutinizing it to see what relationships can be drawn from the organized data, Comparison of these relationships with the Thesis, and Conclusions reached by this comparison. Four parts, just like a Ruminant's stomach. [If you conclude that I stretched things a bit to make that work, you're right! Gee, isn't research fun? :grin:]

Conclusion Statement: This is where it gets interesting. Oddly enough, in the Soft Sciences you very rarely find the Conclusion in Conflict with the Thesis; this is because it is considered Acceptable to change your Thesis to match your results. In the Hard Sciences, this is considered Intellectual Dishonesty, or Lying; in the Hard Sciences, Negative Results are still Positive, in that they direct Future Theories and Research away from wrong paths, wrong being defined as Not In Line With Observed Reality. In the Soft Sciences, Perception is everything, and No One wants to be Perceived to be a Fool, and Proving your own Thesis Wrong is to appear to be A Fool; thus, if your Thesis hadn't been publicized, you change it to match your Conclusions, and if it had been Publicized, reasons why your information is incomplete must be introduced, adjusting factors created, so that upon analysis it will be found that you were Right after all; these are Fudge Factors, and what is being done is Fudging the Results. In the Hard Sciences, being accused of Fudging Results led to Duels At Dawn prior to dueling being outlawed, for it is the greatest of Intellectual Sins. In the Soft Sciences, sometimes even when the Thesis hasn't been publicized Fudge Factors will be introduced, as the Parties Involved have World Views which cannot accept the true results.

When Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences intersect, Worlds Collide. See Galileo, Papacy, Astronomy. See Also Charles Darwin, Evolution, Creationism, Established Church. Oh, a clue: Anything ending in -ism is a Belief System, not necessarily in line with Observed Reality. See Freudianism, Catholicism, Creationism, Reaganomics..., wait, that ends in an -omics, well, -omics is also suspect, generally also referring to belief systems, hence economics, belief systems pertaining to the economy, such as Capitalism, Marxism, Anarchism, etc.

When Soft Sciences have Administrative Oversight of Hard Sciences, the most interesting thing Occurs; the Hard Sciences either maintain Intellectual Honesty, and report when things are different from what was expected, and Lose the Respect of those Above Them, for not knowing what the least of the Soft Science Disciples Knows, which is to Fudge Results to Match Expectations, or they do so, and Lose their Self-Respect, for doing what they Know to be Wrong.

When Hard Science mindsets, not aware of Soft Science Realities, do Research Papers in Soft Science areas, things get downright weird. I, in this case, turned in a History Paper where my conclusion was that I had been wrong, that where I thought x, what was actually the case was y; I turned in a Research Paper. Dave comment that it was the first time he'd ever received a paper where Thesis and Conclusion didn't match, anyone else would have gone back and changed the thesis to match; I looked at him blankly, and responded that this was research, wasn't it? He grinned, it had done me no harm, in this instance, to have been true to the principles of research; then again, Dave Corcoran was a true historian, and wanted to know what really went on. He also wanted his students to learn to think, to be knowledgeable, as we were involved in creating the Future.

But you can see how this difference in World View is crucial in Leadership, for Leaders should always focus on what really is, not what they'd like things to be; anything else would be the height of folly, wouldn't it?

Funny thing, Dave didn't think much of most politicians...

Post this Puppy!