The events on Twitter over the last few weeks have had all the hallmarks of a trainwreck – I know I shouldn’t watch but just can’t look away. And now we have the recent “disclosure” by an individual within the community that their (for lack of a better word) “toxic” behaviour was deliberately designed to elicit responses to support a research paper they were writing for an online psychology course.
For me there is a distinct irony here. Looking back at my own personal accomplishments, I am a PhD, former researcher and current educator (teaching within the International Baccalaureate program). While my specialty is in the natural sciences (medicinal chemistry), I would consider myself a lifelong learner who applies the SKILLS from my past career and makes me able to comment on aspects of what has occurred here, even if I don’t go into the “psychology-specific” aspects.
The timing of this for me is also interesting. A week ago I spent the last few days of my school holidays at a conference learning about the acquisition of knowledge that asks the question “how do we know what we know?” (in international baccalaureate terms this is compulsory aspect of the program called “Theory of Knowledge” and is perhaps the richest and most rewarding learning I have done to date).
So let’s break this situation down. A researcher (no matter their field) begins with an observation of a phenomenon and wants to understand it further. During the university/school learning process, the personal observation aspect might be removed and a topic of research provided (it’s still the same concept – you just haven’t identified the topic of research for yourself). In this case the topic provided was:
“Online Community’s & the defensive mechanics of the human mind”
(Note: Grammar left uncorrected from the original post).
Where so many of my students fall down is thinking they can just jump straight in and collect data. But how do you know what you need to know? Do you even understand what you are being asked to do? First things first, you need to scrutinize the topic itself.
I often like to begin with identifying parts of the topic that require clarification or specific definition?
For example, “Online communities” could be defined in the context of one’s research as focusing on only one specific community (eg Eve Online) or could be a comparison of multiple communities (eg Eve Online vs Star Citizen, high-sec players vs low- and null-sec players)
Next you need to identify the variables you want to explore and consider your research question. The research question acts as a focus, with the ultimate goal of your research to provide an answer to it.
One example (although far from perfect) might be
“How do player attitudes towards ‘High-Sec Space’ within the Eve Online community differ depending on the region they spend the majority of play-time?”
In this example I have identified my independent variable (the thing I am changing), the region of space a player spends the most time in, and a dependent variable (the thing I am actually measuring), players attitudes. I have also been sure to include the details of the community and made use of the language used by the them for context.
From here you now need to consider your methodology in order to collect data. To me, this topic sounds like a survey or observation of player discussions on the issue might be an appropriate. You might even couple this with a literature review, given the vast quantity of articles written on the topic of high-sec space (although reliability of sources would most likely be an issue if you only did this).
But wait – you cannot just go off and do these things.
Because humans (actually any living species) is involved you MUST consider the ethical underpinnings of what you are going to do. Whether you intend to or not, your research is going to be disruptive to the natural system and you must understand and act to minimise the impacts of these. You will also require the informed consent from the participants of your study.
THAT is how you conduct research.
Variable Conclusion 