digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Advice for Students: 10 Steps Toward Better Research

lifehack.org — Here are 10 tips to help you find, organize, and use the information you need to put together a decent research paper.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • FameMoney, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Great guide ! You can learn something useful and quit copy/paste.
    • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I was expecting some lame theories but these are pretty good...
    • corporalclegg24, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Kevin Rose diggs the most boring *****
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Meh. Even for Lifehack this is weak.
  • HairyFotr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21"Remember, though, that until a few years ago, most of us managed to do research with no Internet at all! With typewriters! Walking uphill! In the snow! Barefoot!"
    • bradley0123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0stop whining
    • SSCrow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2walking up hill through the snow barefoot each way you mean?
  • JLKLacross89, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25I LOVE how it includes Wikipedia. I'd never list it as a source but I'm sick of teachers scowling at me when I bring it up in the library.
    • judolphin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I was a high school physics teacher. I never scowled, but I did tell kids to be careful because the vast majority -- about 95% in my experience -- abuse Wikipedia rather than using it properly. They copy/paste, or fail to use any other sources. I felt the best option was to start banning students from citing it. My rationale was almost identical to this author's sentiments: "Wikipedia is not a primary source, but it is a great tool to find primary sources. Read WIkipedia articles, and use the sources at the end of the page to help get your actual data."
    • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3I hate how everybody uses this "I love how.." thingy in EVERY comment.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I LOVE how they do that, don't you?
    • numberwang, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2 I also hate being scowled at by my teachers when I use it for anything. Some people have such prejudices against it that they can't even accept that it is a good starting point for research.
      It frustrates me because Wikipedia is a great research tool and a great project.
      • emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Seeing as you shouldn't be citing it, how do they even know you're using it?
    • Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm a research librarian and often use wikipedia as a starting point. I often have to research very advanced techinical questions, and even with a general background in CS it's always good to get familiar with all the concepts and terms that a specific area uses. However wikipedia is almost like a 'pre-search' tool. As someone who does pure research for often 8 hours a day I can say that one of the first things to do is get a good handle on the language that a particular field uses. For example MRI (Magentic Image Resonance) and NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) are the same thing, but different fields use different terms, searching medical literature for NMR will yield very few results as will searching chemistry literature for MRI.
  • peggyspeaks, on 10/10/2007, -18/+0Please take a look at my book Help Is Not a Four-Letter Word: Why Doing It All Is Doing You In. It explains why students wont' ask for help and suggests ways to ask.Amazon has a lot more explanation!
    Thanks,
    Peggy Collins
  • SiliconRain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7This is pretty good advice for someone who has never written a research paper before, such as someone about to start their first year of a science degree at university in the autumn. If you've ever done even a small amount of research writing before, this should all be common sense.
  • mblanken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I have banned the use of Wikipedia as a reference in my classes, but it is a good place to start some background reading. I also warn against the use of dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the texts used in the class as references. When I see these items in the reference list, a clear message is sent - students did not spend much time or effort on the project.

    Other points that I emphasize with students - develop a thesis and avoid being descriptive. The temptation is to regurgitate or worse, plagiarize, the material. I am using a wiki this fall to see if things improve - students will make their writing available to each other and will develop resources related to the topic - white-collar crime.
    • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Your college sucks.
    • Xanium4332, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2You ban Wikipedia, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and probably the most relevant texts on the subject, so what can I use?
      • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8How about using some actual, primary sources? You know, doing some research?
      • imandir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Is it just me, because I see these little citations at the bottom of Wikipedia articles. If the information is already in one place and cited why not use a wiki? Let me make myself clear, I would not cite Wikipedia, I would use the citation.

        The paid-for sites by college libraries are worthless I had horrible results with them so I just used Wikipedia to reference. WIkipedia has just about everything and it is free.

        If you are going to ban Wikipedia you should ban encyclopedia and dictionaries rather than just advise against using them. They are the same thing, a reference tool.
    • Writher, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why should a paper be judged by how much time is spent on it rather than the content of the paper?

      Fair Criticism: This is a poor paper because not a lot of time was spent on it.

      Unfair Criticism: The is a poor paper because the referenced material does not support the claims, the contents of the paper do not meet the assignment goals, there is not enough support evidence for a claim, etc, etc
      • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Because the former tends to indicate the latter -- or, more accurately, the use of WP indicates both (to avoide ye olde "correlation != causation" problem between time spent and quality).
    • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1you don't deserve to teach.
  • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3LOL. Keep it for yourself dude, it's all damn useless.
  • FrankieLee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3One danger of developing a thesis too early is of course that the researcher tends to develop a bias towards the research. If a lot of work has already been done and the research doesn't overwhelmingly fit the thesis then the researcher may cherry pick data or quotes to make the thesis seem stronger than it actually is.
  • scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2LOL wikipedia. Full of fail. No wonder geeks can't get jobs these days if this is the level of education.
  • footodors, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1does lifehack.org have some agreement with digg or something? seems they're always on digg
  • ColonelJessup, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2My English teacher hated WIkipedia, and instructed us not to use it. He was really hard on those who admitted to using it too. Even though he did admit that the internet was a good resource for getting material for a paper, he still told us to avoid Wikipedia.
    • kingvik, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0that's why you only use wikipedia but cite all the sources that the wikipedia page has cited.
  • bcc0232, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"spend some time searching for keywords related to your topic"

    And for the lazy people...

    http://www.keywordthinktank.com/public/scdemo/demo_03.jsp

    have it done for you :)
  • homeskillet77, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I’ve got to say that if any student cites Wikipedia ( or any variation thereof ) in their research paper, than they deserve the failing grade they should get. Wikipedia should NEVER BE USED in research. The very nature of Wikipedia should make this painfully clear. Anybody can add to Wikis and people are then under the assumption that things stated in these wikis are fact. As professional in academics, I’ve witnessed the broadening use of wikis being cited directly as research material. It is disturbing to say the least.
    • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Define "used in research"...

      It can (and sometimes *should*) be used exactly the same way you'd use any other reference database: to provide you with links to actual information. It doesn't matter if it is Ingenta, ISI, MLA or whatever database is relevant to your field of study, or if it is Wikipedia. None of these should be in your *report*, but all of them are very handly tools in your *research* for that report.

      Or, put simply, don't confus "used in" with "cited."
      • emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I'm pretty sure he used the word "cite" twice. Besides, a professor should not know you are using wikipedia UNLESS you cite it.

        A bit of reading comprehension goes a long way...
        • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yes, he used "cite" twice, but he also wrote a very categorical "Wikipedia should NEVER BE USED in research", which is what I was questioning...
  • chintanop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2this is yaaawwwn!!!
    For undergrads interested in doing real research, I would recommend reading "Practical Research" by Leedy http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Research-Planning-Design-8th/dp/0131108956
    • kenposan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not just for undergrads, I used this in grad school as well.
  • Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I would strongly emphasize that you should really get to know your library's electronic resources. You'd be amazed and how many great tools are available to you from your desk. When other students are citing the wikipedia and you're citing IEEE conference proceedings that's definitely going to make an impact on both the quality of your research and the level of respect your professor is going to have for the type of research your doing.
    • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Not to mention, these tools are *made* for research, so while their advanced nature can make them seem a bit quirky at first, you will quickly pick up and gain tremendous speed and accuracy in looking for exactly the things you need and cross-referencing these findings against other sources.

      Additionally, if your library is half-decent, chances are they subscribe to many, if not all, the larger e-publication houses/sites, which means that you gain access to the actual printed material, rather than some second-hand interpretations and quotations.
  • MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2My school does not let us use Wikipedia for our research papers, even when using it to get a general idea. I think they want us to use those worthless paid-for sites that they subscribe to that contain hard to navigate pages and very little information.
    I usually tell my teachers and librarians that they are stupid and go ahead use Wikipedia anyway. I have not failed any paper using wiki yet.
    Of course this is going to be buried down, but whatever.
    • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"I have not failed any paper using wiki yet."
      As soon as you get any kind of peer review and they start requiring solid, referenced support for your claims, you will. Start learning to do it right now, and you won't be stuck in the future.

      "those worthless paid-for sites that they subscribe to that contain hard to navigate pages and very little information."
      Chances are that the reason they don't contain any information is because you're not looking further. They're meant to give you references -- it is up to you to go look those references up and collect information from them. Note the plural -- one is not enough. That is also why they are "difficult to navigate": because they are meant to provide you with very nasty filtering, correlation, and compilation tools, not just simple search.
  • benc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7> Start, don’t end, with Wikipedia

    No, you *should* end with Wikipedia. I'm not saying to cite Wikipedia in your paper -- the article is correct that that's a very bad idea, not to mention lazy.

    But once your paper is turned in and graded, go back and update the Wikipedia articles you started with! That will help out everyone, including future students starting their research on Wikipedia. Pay it forward and all that, you know?
  • oprion, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Oftentimes, when I couldn't find credible sources to support my claims, I'd invent them. Sometimes, I even constructed fake websites that would further cite non-existent and obscure sources in foreign languages. I guess, I always enjoyed living in a reality of my own design.
  • kenposan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here is Kenposan's method for writing a research paper in four weeks (okay, maybe five)

    Week 1- gather your resources. Gather lots of them, more than you need. Doesn't matter what they are at this point because you aren't actually reading them (except for the abstract). Get your outline together and have an idea where you are planning to go with your thesis.
    Week 2- Read your references. Now I am referring to peer-reviewed articles, not books. In grad school, I only used two books as references, ever. If you are using a book, read only the relevant chapters (duh).
    Week 3- Write your rough draft. Five pages a day. Be sure to work on that APA formatting (assuming you have to use it).
    Week 4- Final draft and reference page.
    Week 5- breathe.

    I got through grad school using this method, while holding a full-time job and having a wife/child.

    • kenposan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And I should have noted that you need to invest in a good online database to save yourself from sitting in the library. You can view everything online and download the articles you need from the comfort of your own couch.
  • smartte, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Thanks a lot for sharing~
    This is help to learn Chinese, if you are interested : http://www.foreignercn.com/cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=485
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Would it kill the digg people to ban this spammer yet?

      The ONLY time this account ever posts a comment is to flog the site above.
  • MissParker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Some very good tips! Some I am familiar with and others not, all in all, if a student follows these, they should have be very successful in their research. I agree with the comment about not using wikipedia as a primary source...but definitely it is worth something...for the references to actual primary sources.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.