We see regular news reports quoting some (or some sort of) research study. The subject of these research studies vary from terrorism to lifestyle, from life threatening diseases to spiritual preferences, from views on life to discourses on death. And are a good source to populate the spaces in newspapers, magazines and web portals. Yes, not all of them are fillers. But yes, almost of them are fillers.
Dig a little about further details, like for the research parameters – the area covered under the study, the sample size, other related studies, the proportion of primary and secondary research work, the data collection tools used, and the final analysis and we come across lazily done works with no regard for even the basic research techniques.
And most of these studies, with no defined sampling techniques and a very limited exposure to the test subjects and the subject itself, cannot be generalized at all. Yet, they make for the news reports, across the continents. So, a localized research study done over 30 people in the US makes for generalized news reports on some lifestyle effect on body in India or Pakistan or a similarly done study in Britain makes headway into Nigeria or Turkey.
The sources of information behind such news reports make for interesting observations the way they are dug into and collected. A research study done over a month with very limited geographical outreach and focus suddenly comes out with ‘eureka sort’ of findings that are localized and interpreted to unravel some nagging problem in a far away corner of the world.
The methodologies of such studies are either not designed or are designed locally. Most of the time the final outcome is based on some flimsily done analysis. The researchers, they don’t care to understand the historical and the prevailing context to get into the basic parameters of a study. Most of the time they ‘study’ through the documents, sitting in a comfortable armchair, employing their skills on their secondary source of information, which are seldom verified for the context or use-worthiness for the subject.
Such research studies are interesting stuff the way they are carried out, compromising on the very ethics of a research work that makes it an enduring legacy of an academic work to be used for a generalized purpose.
And such research studies are carried out in every stream, on every possible subject, in the manner of roundtable negotiations, with no concern for rechecking and reconfirming the facts and going out in the field to cross-verify the information contained in the secondary sources.
Most of such studies are done in historical and contextual isolations and the researchers never bother to know and understand the context of the subject matter at hand. They flimsily analyse and process the information based on their own cultural contexts and ethos looking at the facts from the spectacle of their own societies.
And for many media carriers, most of them do not care before printing such stuff, such observations which are contextually misplaced.
These works are mostly products of half-baked intellects where the creators are not aware of the context of the subject or they don’t do the proper pre-research study work, the contextual interpretation of ‘how, what and why’ of the subject under study or the work under development.
©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey – https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/