How Do You Do Research?

[cimon]

It is not a sweeping statement at all! European Universities never accepted
internet sources as valid for academic work and rightly so! If an accredited author wishes to publish there are many accredited publications with wide readership he could publish his materials;he doesn't have to resort to internet garbage...

 

[d32123]

It is not a sweeping statement at all! European Universities never accepted
internet sources as valid for academic work and rightly so! If an accredited author wishes to publish there are many accredited publications with wide readership he could publish his materials;he doesn't have to resort to internet garbage...

1. We're writing TL's, not dissertations.
2. There are plenty of accredited authors publishing their accredited stuff on the internet.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

http://decipherment.wordpress.com/

Now don't start telling me David Stuart isn't an accredited expert and one of the leaders in his field just because "European Universities" say so and their word is law.

 

[cimon]

http://decipherment.wordpress.com/

Now don't start telling me David Stuart isn't an accredited expert and one of the leaders in his field just because "European Universities" say so and their word is law.

For us Europeans it is my friend,and it is not only Universities;Organizations,
Governments and other institutions agree with that rule.Your view in the other side of the Atlantic may be different,but you are talking about events in our continent mostly and areas under European influence;I would say that we
rightly have the first word on that;we see gov.interests making their play through internet and many countries are not very pleased with that.
I know that many of you don't have the money to buy the required books,but it is better to use fewer sources than many inaccurate ones;
I myself had the opportunity to correct my name in three different places and correct inacccuracies about my person,but in other cases I could correct nothing without...permission of groups unknown to me and I can say that it was a case of alterior motive;

I have also noticed a persistent inclination of American contributors not to use European sources about European affairs;I am not going to characterise that against established authorities,but I can call it unecessary jingoism.

I don't know which David Stuart you are referring to,the physisist,the linguist,and many others so what is the meaning of throwing a name without specifying any further?

 

[Blackadder mk 2]

I personally only used wikipedia and google maps for my timeline, but for the Miners' Strike TL I'm planning I intend to do a bit more research, if I can get sources for free or fairly cheap anyway (I do have one book on the subject anyway). I might actually wait till after 2015 anyway to see if any government documents that might be released give any new info.

There's an excerpt for a Times article which might help, it mentioned how one scheme almost ended the strike with faces on both sides being saved but got shot down. I can PM it to you, if you like.

On the research front, looking for some books on the area you want to look at on Amazon can help greatly, I'm researching a TL about the political scene from 1906-1923 in Britain and finding the books needed to get a better view of the period was easier than I thought.

 

[cimon]

Well that isn't entirely true, is it.

Thank you for the subterfuge! so a lot is true isn't it?well you dont' have to say anything about it;they admit it in countless cases, the inadequacies of the articles,their lack of authority for backing or the incompleteness of the articles,and if wikipedia is so credible as some people believe then why are they so desperately asking for contributions about existing articles as well about knew ones? a credible site has so many applications for articles that chooses what to publish,it doesn't beg for them...

 

[History_Pintobean]

All internet sources,I am sorry to say,are either unreliable,incomplete or unverified and in many places false,incomplete,confused or misleading.

This is true to an extent, but not entirely true as other posters have already pointed out; the internet as a reference tool (i.e. Wikipedia, etc.) is fine but reading an actual book by a well-known or esteemed author/historian is generally viewed IMHO as being more accurate if one is to go about writing alternate history (being as alternate history is still heavily based off of real history, it requires immense research coupled with the fact that an AH is usually wildly different from real history making it doubly hard to write a solid AH)

We're writing TL's, not dissertations.

True, but a lot of research is still required if the AH is to have any credibility on its own. A TL may not be a dissertation but, being as the internet is the internet, it's common to come across AH that is poorly-researched and thus the AH world seems way less likely in comparison to, say, something like Decades of Darkness or The Anglo/American-Nazi War. (which were written as if the authors did enough research for an actual dissertation on the early United States and/or WWII)

I'll end my post with this passage from the Alternate History Weekly Update (from the article "Problems With American Civil War Alternate Histories"):

This brings me to my last major point about American Civil War alternate histories: do your research. It is possible to create a timeline that gives the reader a realistic portrayal of an independent Confederacy, especially in the Information Age where you have access to virtually infinite amounts of content on the war, along with the opinions of scholars with varying viewpoints.

...Do not allow your bias...to cause you to sacrifice the hard work necessary to make a plausible timeline.

It requires hard work, dedication, and considerable research as to be able to write a decent online TL IMHO.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

I don't know which David Stuart you are referring to,the physisist,the linguist,and many others so what is the meaning of throwing a name without specifying any further?

If you bothered actually reading my post it'd seem obvious that I'm referring to the guy who created the website I linked to, as in the linguist. The one who is considered by everybody who isn't a nutjob to be a very authoritable source in his particular field. There are plenty of other examples to. Accredited professors and the like are in fact allowed to contribute to internet sites should they so choose, your baseless elitism notwithstanding.

 

[Nassirisimo]

I have also noticed a persistent inclination of American contributors not to use European sources about European affairs;I am not going to characterise that against established authorities,but I can call it unecessary jingoism.

This is especially rich, considering a long European tradition of ignoring the records and works of other cultures in favor of their own. This is especially marked in older historical works, which tend to rely more on stereotypes and anecdotal evidence then actual scholarship as we would recognize it.

While I grant you that Wikipedia cannot always be counted upon for veracity, academic articles on sites like JSTOR are useful tools in researching a timeline because their authors have almost always so thoroughly researched the topic they're writing about, meriting publication either in print or on the internet.

I emphatically agree with this. Not only are websites such as JSTOR full of information and articles from reputable Journals (many coming from University Printing Presses) but it is a website that is acceptable as a reference for many universities. My own university, and many others at least here in the UK, have a subscription which allows students to access many of the articles for free.

European Universities automatically discredit the internet indeed!

 

[Workable Goblin]

Well, I was going to mention JSTOR, but other people beat me to it. So I'll just mention arXiv and NTRS (although NTRS is a pale shadow of what it once was...)

Granted, arXiv has a lot of crank papers on it, but it also has many, many brilliant ones, and in some fields, such as particle physics (my field, as it happens) it's probably the best possible source to look for any given academic paper that's been published since its creation. Far better than any (printed) journal, because arXiv has (nearly) all of them, instead of just whatever happened to have been printed in that journal, and of course is easily searchable. Call this paper, for instance, disreputable because it's on the Internet. I dare you!

NTRS, of course, is (was) a digitized repository for a vast amount of technical NASA material, including a great deal of mission planning work since the 1960s. I don't know in what universe (scanned versions of) official NASA documents or contractor studies discussing lunar bases or Mars missions would be considered "non-credible" sources for, at the very least, discussing NASA lunar base or Mars mission planning.

In any event, to return to the OP, my research for Eyes Turned Skyward has been very extensive. For the most part, I have found, downloaded, and read a large volume of (mostly) NASA documentation related to various aspects of the timeline, together with some secondary sources (for example, Asif Siddiqi's books on the Soviet space program up to the mid-1970s, which are probably the premier academic source on the program, or Paolo Ulivi's books on planetary exploration, which are also highly regarded). In general these have been useful for establishing the base facts of a post, which we then "fill out," so to speak, with our own creativity. Both I and e of pi have made very extensive use of basic calculational tools to assess the feasibility of various things in our timeline, such as the performance of rockets (calculated using a generally well-regarded if limited on-line performance calculator) or the masses of lunar spacecraft. We have also used Wikipedia in some instances where either we were looking up minor or basic facts (such as the rocket equation, the date of the Three Mile Island accident, or the mass of Huygens) or where there were or are a comparative dearth of primary or secondary sources. As time moves on we must, of course, necessarily rely less on research as our timeline diverges more and more from OTL, especially in technical details and history.

 

[Rogue triple Agent]

Like others have mentioned, this is just a internet forum. Also remember not to think yourself to death, and that sometimes the reading public likes Dan Brown type weakness.

 

[asnys]

Well, I was going to mention JSTOR, but other people beat me to it. So I'll just mention arXiv and NTRS (although NTRS is a pale shadow of what it once was...)

The Department of Energy's Information Bridge is also very good if you're looking for stuff on atomic energy and related fields. If you're willing to put up some money, the National Technical Information Service also has some good stuff.

Granted, arXiv has a lot of crank papers on it, but it also has many, many brilliant ones, and in some fields, such as particle physics (my field, as it happens) it's probably the best possible source to look for any given academic paper that's been published since its creation. Far better than any (printed) journal, because arXiv has (nearly) all of them, instead of just whatever happened to have been printed in that journal, and of course is easily searchable. Call this paper, for instance, disreputable because it's on the Internet. I dare you!

That's true in mathematics, as well.

 

[mowque]

I ask my wife.

 

[cimon]

Nope. You said that all internet sources are unreliable.

While I grant you that Wikipedia cannot always be counted upon for veracity, academic articles on sites like JSTOR are useful tools in researching a timeline because their authors have almost always so thoroughly researched the topic they're writing about, meriting publication either in print or on the internet.



The internet is big; I'm sure various authors of various articles published online have admitted they've made a mistake along the way, but that doesn't automatically mean that every article published on the internet is factually unreliable because it is on the internet.

I am not speaking about sites that you have to pay subscription to draw information from;that is a completely different story and their based on completely different criteria.I am categorically discounting Wikipedia and similar sites with free access to anyone.Although everyone here admits to mistakes and oversights in Wiki articles,it is evident that the reader wouldn't know beforehand what article is accurate and well documented and what is not...

 

[Ian Hathaway]

I am not speaking about sites that you have to pay subscription to draw information from;that is a completely different story and their based on completely different criteria.I am categorically discounting Wikipedia and similar sites with free access to anyone.Although everyone here admits to mistakes and oversights in Wiki articles,it is evident that the reader wouldn't know beforehand what article is accurate and well documented and what is not...

You can't just dismiss the internet though ... I've used many in research, however, as you have stated, don't rely on it as the truth and certainly don't rely on one source (but that is also true of books). Using a balanced mix of references is always best, checking facts and information across a range of books, historical records and the internet.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

I am not speaking about sites that you have to pay subscription to draw information from;that is a completely different story and their based on completely different criteria.I am categorically discounting Wikipedia and similar sites with free access to anyone.Although everyone here admits to mistakes and oversights in Wiki articles,it is evident that the reader wouldn't know beforehand what article is accurate and well documented and what is not...

So a European university told you the only sources that can be trusted are ones that you have to pay for? How surprising.

 

[LeX]

I don't believe in doing research. If what you write is spiritually correct it will find natural resonance in the hearts and minds of the myriad.

 

[Lemon flavoured]

There's an excerpt for a Times article which might help, it mentioned how one scheme almost ended the strike with faces on both sides being saved but got shot down. I can PM it to you, if you like.

I think I've read that article actually, or a very similar one, but feel free to PM me it anyway.

 

[Derek Pullem]

It is not a sweeping statement at all! European Universities never accepted
internet sources as valid for academic work and rightly so! If an accredited author wishes to publish there are many accredited publications with wide readership he could publish his materials;he doesn't have to resort to internet garbage...

Not true.

Internet sources are acceptable provided they are credible. Same goes for books - nutcases can write books too you know?

Here is the toc Open University guide to referencing from the UK - any source is potentially acceptable provided it is properly referenced and credible. How do you think they write original material in books - they interview people (shock horror!)

Contents​

1 Introduction 7​

1.1 Principles of in-text citations and references 7
1.2 The general structure of a reference 8​

2 In-text citations 10
3 Reference list 12
4 Secondary referencing 13
5 Books, book chapters and ebooks 14​

5.1 Books 14
5.2 Book chapters 14
5.3 Translated books 15
5.4 Modern editions 16
5.5 Sacred texts 16
5.6 Ebooks online 17
5.7 Ebooks on readers 17​

6 Journal and newspaper articles 19​

6.1 Printed journal articles 19
6.2 Ejournal articles 19
6.3 Printed newspaper articles 21
6.4 Online newspaper articles 21​

7 OU module materials 23​

7.1 Module texts 23
7.2 Copublished module texts 25
7.3 Online module materials 26
7.4 Module readings 27
7.5 Module DVDs and video clips 29
7.6 Figures, diagrams and tables 31
7.7 Secondary referencing in module materials 32
7.8 Citing materials from another module 32
7.9 Page numbers 33​

8 Audiovisual material 35​

8.1 TV programme 35
8.2 Film 35
8.3 DVD 36
8.4 Audio CD 37
8.5 Songs 37
8.6 YouTube item 39
8.7 iTunes or other downloads 39​

9 Works of art and visual sources 41​

9.1 Works of art 41
9.2 Online images 41
9.3 Exhibition catalogues 42
9.4 Plays and live performances 43​

10 Online/electronic materials 45​

10.1 Personal or organisational websites 45
10.2 Online documents 45
10.3 Blogs 46
10.4 Wikis 47
10.5 Twitter 47
10.6 Podcasts 48​

11 Conference papers 49
12 Reports 50
13 Software 51​

13.1 Computer programs 51
13.2 Mobile application 51​

14 Personal communications 53​

14.1 Emails 53
14.2 Forum messages 53
14.3 Telephone calls 54
14.4 Personal letters 54
14.5 Unpublished interviews 55
14.6 Second Life 55​

15 Theses 57​

16 Legal and legislative material 58

 

[cimon]

So a European university told you the only sources that can be trusted are ones that you have to pay for? How surprising.

Dear sir,

I wasn't told by any University what is and what isn't.I was already a professional when I went to the University,or if you like the second one where I went for the second degree and I observed lecturers remarking about this and that,what is acceptable as evidence,or authority and what wasn't and most important why, and since we were going for tutorials two and in others four persons,I observed what was every day occurence at least during the first months.of a course. Through career stages I had to set my rules again with whys and my last university course is 33 years behind me which means that some experience has helped a lot.Out of that experience I advocate that young students are lured by the easy way of the internet,most lack the experience to distinguish what is what and use a source only because they think it helps their argument.

To give you a very recent example,someone wrote to me as an answer to my remarks that I confuse two issues which was the mainstay of my profession that I have practised for 35 years,after he had read...two articles in Wikipedia;I read them and they were so mixed and confusing that I really felt ashamed for those who wrote them...then I wondered what a junk organization allows such rubbish to be published...that person,who I like a lot writes a TL and tries hard to excell;how can he go forward with such means of research? now you know that such information is dangerous and that is why I dislike Wikipedia.I do the same with books...but that is a more complicated matter that involves even national interests that flow out of book material a lot.Finally,for good research one language is never enough;one of the weak points of Anglo-saxon youngsters...