Where did you learn to research?

[AO1501]

I didn't so much learn how to research as discover it, as a result of a teacher at school telling me about something I found interesting, then not giving me more information.

By then I knew my local library pretty well, so I went there to look the subject up. One of the librarians helped me by showing me that there was likely always more than one book to read up from, and after that, every time I found myself interested in something I'd heard about, I'd head for the library and spend hours.... sometimes a day or two... in the reference section.

That's how I knew exactly which contract law reference book I wanted for Christmas when I was 10.... and why I wanted it.

 

[MrSpock]

Depending on what you're researching it may be expected that most material will not be relevant. Some books are the result of many years of research spent looking through thousands of documents in many places for maybe a hundred, and in those most of the material may not be relevant to their particular topic. Getting hold of lots of non-relevant material is a good way to ensure that you're not missing important, relevant material.

Sorting through it is another thing, you do have to be ready and able to stop reading when you know it's not relevant. I don't know if you look at the table of contents in a book or not, but you might look at and choose not to read a book based on the chapter titles alone if you're sorting through a great number of books.

This will all depend on what you're researching, how likely the topic is to be mentioned obviously in a chapter title, how a book's chapters are titled, all kinds of things.

I would suggest that you try to break things down into as many different levels as you can. Don't take on the whole library, choose a section or two that are relevant. Choose shelves within those sections, perhaps. Books within the shelves, chapters within the books, as many subdivisions as you can, each subdivision is a chance to get rid of stuff you don't want to read. Just make sure that you have enough of an understanding of what the thing is before you decide that it's not relevant. If you're being thorough. Again, depends on what you're researching. If you want to become really good at something you may be better off reading one book by someone who's mastered the art involved than reading a lot of bits by different people, as you may lack the knowledge to put the bits together well.

 

[SusanLR]

I never got much out of what was taught in school.
University was a bit better as I could study more of my special interests.
Learning in school, the things they wanted, was very easy but not that interesting.

I loved the old Encylopedias too.
I started reading my first set when I was 10.
Also loved reading certain types of literature. I was really fascinated by anything Arthurian
and Greek mythology.

Research is something that just came naturally with the internet.
Once I discovered the PC it was like having the world at my fingertips.
I learned as I went along, which were the best websites for accurate information.

 

[Progster]

Libraries, and then the internet. I also was given books for my birthday or Christmas - I remember being given a big book on dogs and reading it multiple times from cover to cover, and then later books on astronomy.

 

[Mary Anne]

I love love research. I found my love in public school back in high school way way pre computers (early 70s.) I lived at the public library. I still love libraries. I love to read. Computers, though fantastic, can overwhelm bcause there can be way too much information overload. It’s too easy to learn! I do love discerning between science based articles and all the other stuff though. Accessing the different types of available info on ANY subject just blows my mind to this day. I have been on computers since the early 90s. Mostly self taught.

Cell phones are portable libraries, and they are great for looking things up on the fly. All in all though, life was simpler pre-computers and cell phones. I miss that.

 

[WittyAspie]

The hardest part of research is finding good material to read. For me one of the best parts of going to college was knowing people (my professors) who were knowledgeable about good books to read. They could point me to credible literature on whatever topic I was interested in. Once you find a few good books you can look at the sources in those books as potential new books to read.

 

[Pats]

I HATED school. I remember beginning with second grade begging my mom to let me quit. lol I'm also self taught. If it's something I'm interested in I can spend hours on end looking up stuff and learning all I can about it, but if I'm not interested you're not going to get through to me. As I was growing up we didn't have access to things outside of school - just the books we brought home (which I never brought any home). We did have a set of encyclopedias that have about a paragraph on each topic. I hated reading and had my older sister do my book reports. I take that back - it's not reading I hate because I find myself reading a lot if it's interesting but don't like reading books that most people enjoy. It was very hard getting through nursing school but I had to force myself to learn it so I could support my kids. Internet today makes everything more assessable.

 

[Pats]

I love love research. I found my love in public school back in high school way way pre computers (early 70s.) I lived at the public library. I still love libraries. I love to read. Computers, though fantastic, can overwhelm bcause there can be way too much information overload. It’s too easy to learn! I do love discerning between science based articles and all the other stuff though. Accessing the different types of available info on ANY subject just blows my mind to this day. I have been on computers since the early 90s. Mostly self taught.

Cell phones are portable libraries, and they are great for looking things up on the fly. All in all though, life was simpler pre-computers and cell phones. I miss that.

See - I'm complete opposite. School in 60's and 70's - even nursing school pre-computer. I now have access to any bit of information from the comfort of my own home through the internet. But I do tend to self judge the legitimacy of an article based on spelling and grammatical errors. Once I see an error it discredits the writer and I stop reading. LOL At least through books, they've been edited and corrections made. I wish I enjoyed reading books more.

 

[interaural]

I've always loved libraries, as long as they are quiet enough. As a teenager with an interest in electronics, I found my local town library had a lovely reference section downstairs which took a couple of electronics hobbyist periodicals. While the lending library upstairs would be crowded and busy, downstairs, even on a Saturday morning, it was just me and a couple of old retired blokes reading the newspaper. In total silence. So perhaps that was my first experience of research; I learned a lot of electronics from those magazines and then from the few textbooks they had.

Later on, doing A-levels, my English teacher took us to the local university library so we could get an idea of what a proper research library was like. I was astonished by the size of it, and delighted by the news that students could obtain absolutely any book published. If the library did not stock it, they could request it from the British Library. (Like the Library of Congress, the BL receives a copy of everything published in the UK.) I think this cemented my desire to go to university.

Later still, when I started my PhD (still pre-www), I spent days in the library researching articles in journals. This is where I learned to research. I would find a paper I was interested in and then search for related papers, perhaps papers that had cited my target paper. This involved reading through huge bound volumes of abstracts (the abstract is the summary of a paper). There was a lovely serendipity in this: I would track down the abstract I wanted to read, but then my eye would be caught by another abstract on the facing page. So I would read that, and so on.

Now I only read papers and abstracts on my screen, via the www. I still miss the physical books of abstracts. Following web links isn't quite the same experience, though reading up on a topic is much more efficient.

And finally, I tend to think of all this as secondary research: reading other people's stuff. About half my job is primary research: designing and running experiments to generate my own little bits of knowledge. I started learning to do this during my PhD too, but I'm still learning.

 

[tducey]

Self-taught myself. Love doing research.

 

[FreeDiver]

Now I only read papers and abstracts on my screen, via the www. I still miss the physical books of abstracts. Following web links isn't quite the same experience, though reading up on a topic is much more efficient..

I agree. Ever since the internet came around. Books have become pretty much obsolete. There bulky, cost money, go out of date, take up a lot of space and just take up too much time just to search for something. The only thing that a good old fashion paperback book is good for is a fictional novel. And that's the only thing that a book can beat the internet on.

 

[WittyAspie]

I've always loved libraries, as long as they are quiet enough. As a teenager with an interest in electronics, I found my local town library had a lovely reference section downstairs which took a couple of electronics hobbyist periodicals. While the lending library upstairs would be crowded and busy, downstairs, even on a Saturday morning, it was just me and a couple of old retired blokes reading the newspaper. In total silence. So perhaps that was my first experience of research; I learned a lot of electronics from those magazines and then from the few textbooks they had.

Later on, doing A-levels, my English teacher took us to the local university library so we could get an idea of what a proper research library was like. I was astonished by the size of it, and delighted by the news that students could obtain absolutely any book published. If the library did not stock it, they could request it from the British Library. (Like the Library of Congress, the BL receives a copy of everything published in the UK.) I think this cemented my desire to go to university.

Later still, when I started my PhD (still pre-www), I spent days in the library researching articles in journals. This is where I learned to research. I would find a paper I was interested in and then search for related papers, perhaps papers that had cited my target paper. This involved reading through huge bound volumes of abstracts (the abstract is the summary of a paper). There was a lovely serendipity in this: I would track down the abstract I wanted to read, but then my eye would be caught by another abstract on the facing page. So I would read that, and so on.

Now I only read papers and abstracts on my screen, via the www. I still miss the physical books of abstracts. Following web links isn't quite the same experience, though reading up on a topic is much more efficient.

And finally, I tend to think of all this as secondary research: reading other people's stuff. About half my job is primary research: designing and running experiments to generate my own little bits of knowledge. I started learning to do this during my PhD too, but I'm still learning.

The university I graduated from has a section of old journals that aren’t available on the Internet. I am one of the only students I know of who actually used that section. There is so much good material there, and it was so much easier to read than trying to navigate through various sites to read journals online.

 

[interaural]

I agree. Ever since the internet came around. Books have become pretty much obsolete. There bulky, cost money, go out of date, take up a lot of space and just take up too much time just to search for something. The only thing that a good old fashion paperback book is good for is a fictional novel. And that's the only thing that a book can beat the internet on.

Oh, I wouldn't go as far as that. I love physical books. And I like physical academic journals (though I accept the latter are a bit of an indulgence.) For research results, there's also a significant difference in quality control between an edited book from a good university press and a website.

 

[interaural]

The university I graduated from has a section of old journals that aren’t available on the Internet. I am one of the only students I know of who actually used that section. There is so much good material there, and it was so much easier to read than trying to navigate through various sites to read journals online.

Agreed. I work in a university and I occasionally hide in the library stacks, where the printed journals are. Not many other people go there now.

 

[CBA83]

As I've probably stated before, I did not go to college or university. I quit in the 11th grade because i simply couldnt take it anymore, and did corespondence and got my Diploma about a month after the next year would have started. Daddy asked me if I wanted to go to college, and probably would have paid my way, but at the time, it was not just no, but Hell No! I couldn't fathom the thought of ...all those people!! And torment!!! at the time. Then marriage, kids and life happened.

My question is, I see a lot of folks doing these deep studies in a variety of topics, did it come naturally as one with ASD, or did you learn how to study deeply in education, IOW, did you learn the method of studying from school?

My special interest has always been the bible, creationism, archaeology, geology, things like that but I've not been as "deep" in it as some. (The Giants and nephilim always piqued my interest, even from a child).

I think I also have ADD, which kind of throws in a mix of distractions when I'm trying to focus on one, lots of rabbit trails, etc. (Not sure what that is, my intense focus is, long term, but not short term- like so focused I'm unaware of my surroundings, I'm always intensely aware of all going on around me, so that it distracts me from what I'm trying to do. I wish I could drown out that stuff, I may could find some peace, just zone out. But, I'm too distracted. :'( )

Squirrel!!! XD

Anyway, what I am trying to find out is, did you "learn" the mechanics of study, and research in college?

[[Side thought, is this what the higher Language Arts teaches? I took English 1 & 2 in HS, that was all that was required if no college was planned. I love learning, but on my own, not in classes. :/]]

All I know to do is keep searching the internet for keywords and look up and read articles. I more or less scan, to see if its interesting, or on topic, but word for word reading is boring. LOL

Is there some article, course of some kind, website, or something that can teach me these things, how to really dig into research, take notes and study?

I feel so dumb and left behind, not to mention my mind isn't what it used to be. My memory is getting worse with age, it used to be very good.
Thanks!

I started studying by myself at age 3 or 4, sneaking dopwnstairs to watch open university from 3:30 am to .. I dunno, sometimes 6 if there was a second educational thing on. I had my opinions on dark matter and big crunch theory solidified by age 5. And... well. Nothing has changed.

Learning was completely spontaneous. Though my mum did put effort into teaching me to read, write and do maths and I'm above average in most of the academic faculties, then again - I dont think anything could have made a difference - I feel I'm wired to learn - Now I'm older my interests are broader and specialisms, although obsessive tend to at least have risk of being useful. The stock market seemed an excellent compromise at first. Now its an expensive habit.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

I did not really understand research until I actually started working in basic research, first in molecular genetics then in experimental pathology. Otherwise, before this it was just looking up factoids, which is a recipe for merely descending into confirmation bias and other biases. In my research I finally learned how to pose questions and understand how to build a study to answer them. Part of that is learning to study procedures and other methodology to understand the strong and weak points and see what are reliable and reproducible guides. Understanding rhetoric is also important, because how an author frames and builds an argument, and the use of language, is frequently a tell whether their writing is reliable information or garden variety ********. One source I use in explaining to people how to unpack arguments is the ruling of Judge Jones in Kitzmiller v Dover, precisely because of my knowledge of both evolutionary biology and the twisted ******** of creationist arguments.

But, most importantly has been my training in many technical fields as well as applied statistics. Whether in understanding research conducted by another in publications (go to the source material FIRST!) or problem solving in my work, a broad understanding of basic principles that provides a firm baseline has been valuable.