UPSB v3

Pen Spinning Relations / [topic][4.9.1] Policies and Procedures when Conducting Research

  1. Eburt
    Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 23:42:14

    Policies and Procedures When Conducting Research

    Contributors:     Eburt, Zombo, strat1227



    Abstract:

    This article explains in detail the suggested method for conducting research on the field of Pen Spinning and related fields. This process is based upon the Scientific Method as is used in colleges, universities, and places of research across the world. The process involves first locating a problem area in research, and then doing a Literature Review of the existing material on the topic. Next one should create a hypothesis based on their knowledge of the topic. They can then design a study to test it and carry out their research. After collecting and analyzing data they may make a final conclusion about their hypothesis and further research. Once this process is completed (some steps may need to be repeated) the findings can be summarized in a Research Article adhering to the guidelines found in the “Proper Format for Writing a Research Article” (Insert hyperlink to finished article.)

    Index:
    1) Introduction
    2) Notes on the Scientific Method
    3) Step 1: Selecting a Problem
    4) Step 2: Literature Review
    5) Step 3: Hypothesis
    6) Step 4: Design the Study
    7) Step 5: Collect Data
    8) Step 6: Analyze Data
    9) Step 7: Reaching Conclusions
    10) Step 8: Repetition as Necessary
    11) Step 9: Publishing an Article
    12) Closing Thoughts
    13) Bibliography

    Introduction:

    In an effort to standardize the research approach as well as to increase the accuracy, credibility and information present in the research, this article attempts to outline a format for conducting such formalized research. The general hope is that research will become more reputable in general, by following similar guidelines to those present in the scientific community of the world. By outlining the procedure by which this research should be performed certain quality standards and methodologies are implemented as detailed below.

    Notes on the Scientific Method:

    This method has been adopted by the scientific community and adapted in order to fit Pen Spinning research conditions. This process is very involved and is used to ensure quality and accuracy within research. It should also be noted that, while listed linearly below, this method is more analogous to a circular process. That is, often times, one may begin the research process at a stage other than “Step 1: Selecting a Problem.” For example, often times, Literature Review leads to the problem. In the same notion, often times some steps will be repeated at various points throughout the research.

    One must also note that it is important to adhere to the Ethical Guidelines for Research (Insert appropriate link to finished article) when performing said research. This article will not cover those, please refer to the above link for more information.

    Perhaps the most important aspect of research is to Operationally Define certain terms. This is very important in order to clarify the research. For example, if you were doing a study on what pens people prefer, you would need to define many terms. If you used a polling method and had, for example, heavy, medium, and light pens (obviously not enough classifications or definitions) you would have to define what each meant. Heavy, medium, and light would each need a certain range of weights (preferably in multiple units, for the sake of the participants) to define each. Part of the value of this, is that for the rest of the project you may simply use the terms heavy, medium, and light once they are defined.

    Step 1: Selecting a Problem:

    The most important thing when researching is, of course, the topic. You need to pick a problem that has sufficient area open for research and preferably some use within that research.

    One easy way to do this is to consider an active thread/article/website and find a flaw in the logic. For example, if someone in a thread states that a heavier pen will make you a better spinner, there is an obvious logical fallacy. You may then conduct a study on how accurate this is. Perhaps to a degree it is true, but at some point you won’t even be able to move the pen any more. Obviously, this is not better.

    Another avenue may be to simply have an idea no one has ever thought of. Perhaps inventing a new trick or mod or some other aspect of pen spinning. Just make sure you clearly define the problem before continuing.

    Step 2: Literature Review:

    This is the first thing you should do after selecting your problem. The idea is that you research all the available information that you can find on a certain topic. This prevents people from doing the same research twice, and also makes you as informed as possible about your topic.

    For example, if you were to do a research project on the effects of wet/dry hands on spinning, you would need to look up a lot of information. You would need to find references on wet/dry hands, hand care, lotions, and have a large knowledge of spinning in general. This research may extend beyond forums and even other pen spinning sites into seemingly non-pen spinning related topics. Most of the time you will want to site these sources in your paper, in a bibliography at the end.

    It should also be noted that this may often be the first part of the research, leading to your problem. Perhaps you are reading an article and notice something not clearly defined, or an obvious variable over-looked. This may prompt further research on the subject.

    Step 3: Hypothesis:

    The hypothesis is an educated guess as to what your study will reveal. It is obviously important to do sufficient literature review so as to know as much about the topic as possible. It does not matter in the end if the hypothesis is correct or not, it is simply for reference as well as helping to show the process that went into the research.

    A hypothesis is also not a question, but rather a statement and should always be phrased as such. The hope is that at the end of the study you will be able to either support or refute your hypothesis with empirical evidence (that which can be gathered using your senses).

    All scientific research should have a hypothesis. It is possible to write articles without one, however those articles must lack a scientific approach in that there is no experiment to test.

    Step 4: Design the Study:

    It is crucial that you make an accurate and proper study for your topic. This is accomplished by considering the variables that you must account for and designing around them. You should ideally have as few variables as possible so as not to skew the results. In the aforementioned study about the effects of pen weight on spinning, you would want the only variable to be weight. Therefore, length, surface, grips, time of day, warm-up, ect. should all remain the same in every trial.

    Another important factor is how possible it will be to complete the study accurately. For example, a project on LED (Light Emitting Diode) Pen Mods should take cost into consideration. If you expect to have a significant number of prototypes, things could get expensive. Other considerations include time, and participation from others.

    The last thing to consider, in some studies, is the sample you are using. If you want to know which pens spinners prefer, you should make sure to choose an objective, random sample. This means, for example, that making a thread about it, and considering the first 20 responses is not an adequate sample. These are not random and share a number of things in common, most notably, the time period in which they replied. It is also not satisfactory due to the number of people involved. 20 is not a statistically significant sample of the entire Pen Spinning community.

    Of course, if you wanted to do a study on which pens European spinners preferred, you would want to make sure that your sample was entirely European spinners.

    So you need a statistically significant and random sample in order to conduct the research. For more on this, consider these articles on random samples:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistically_significant

    Number generators and tables may be found commonly on the web and are also simple to construct in most computer programming languages. Select a method that fits your study and constraints.

    Also, when creating your study, be sure to operationally define all the terms and variables within the study (see “Notes on the Scientific Method”).

    Step 5: Collect Data:

    As previously stated, when collecting data be sure to use a random and statistically significant sample where appropriate (a study on the RSVP MX, obviously wouldn’t need randomly selected MXs as they should all be the same, though it couldn’t hurt to repeat the study with multiple MXs just in case).

    This is fairly straight forward. Collect the data from your study. There are many ways of doing this, and the best one should be selected when designing the study. Some examples include polling, questionnaires, sample analysis, observation, ect.

    Once you have the data, it should be properly organized to make for easy reference. Graphs and tables may be made at this point if appropriate.

    Step 6: Analyze Data:

    Once you have your data and organize it, you must then proceed to analyze it. This means to examine it for any trends pertaining to your hypothesis. How you do this is largely up to you and the nature of the study, so one must select the best method.

    For example, a study on the effects of the weight of pens on pen spinning would need to classify their data (possibly operationally defining some new terms in the process) and examine how it relates to their hypothesis.

    Step 7: Reaching Conclusions:

    You must now ascertain how your data influenced your hypothesis. Perhaps it was correct, and now supported by empirical evidence, or perhaps it was wrong. Which does not matter much, it is not important to be right, simply to learn.

    Thomas Edison once said, while working on the electric light bulb, “I have not failed 2000 times. I have found 2000 ways not to invent the light bulb.” (Loosely adapted)

    Step 8: Repetition as Necessary:

    Note that this step may not actually be Step 8, but rather can occur at any point during the process of the Scientific Method.

    At some point during your study, you may realize that you have made a mistake, or lack sufficient research in some aspect. At this point it is imperative to go back and repeat and necessary steps to ensure the quality of your research. Sometimes the entire study may need to be repeated.

    Step 9: Publishing an Article:

    It is important to let the public know about your findings! This article will not go into details on how to do so, and therefore this is provided as reference: Proper Format for Writing a Research Article (insert appropriate link to article)

    Closing Thoughts:

    I hope that this article will help people to perform accurate and pertinent research. This was originally intended solely for personal use, however I feel that the entire community could benefit from its existence, which is why I have shared it with you. It is certainly not required to use this method, however I suggest it strongly, as an adaptation of a long standing, time-tested method.

    If you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to contact me either by Personal Message here on UPSB, or by emailing me at [email protected]

    Also note that I am always looking for ways to improve this article. I realize that some more references in some sections, particularly on statistics and research methods may be useful. Please contact me or update the wiki appropriately if you can help with this.

    Bibliography:

    James M. Henslin, Essentials of Sociology a Down-to-Earth Approach
    -Scientific Method References

    Dr. Dan Pollock, Sociology 100, Hudson Valley Community College
    -Scientific Method References

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    -Scientific Method References

  2. Zombo
    Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 01:34:26

    did you repost this or something? I swear I posted a question asking if you were going to release this in public or not, since it only seems to concern actual researchers inside the RD.

  3. strat1227
    Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 01:36:06

    hmm, a few things i noted while reading this:

    first off is you're assuming every project in the RD is true research... this might not necisarily be so ... for example, my project about teaching people tricks would have been a GREAT one to model this way, very close to Bacon's scientific method. however, things like the angle project dont really need a hypothesis or anything like that, just getting alot of angles and comparing them, its more observation than research.

    but as far as reaseach-related projects, i think this would be a great model to follow, it makes perfect sense and would probably help further research of (dedicated) researchers...

    uhhm, i can't say much more than that about it until i see the other articles you're planning to release, im looking forward to the releasing info one especially, i've always wondered what the best way to do that is...

  4. Eburt
    Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 01:42:51

    No Zombo, I never posted this... and yeah, it is mainly for researchers, but I was gonna publically release it anyway, in case someone wanted to use it without being in the RD. Can't hurt...

    Strat, I know it kinda sounds that way, but it is an optional method. Its not required, and some projects would not lend themselves to it. This also leans more twords "social" sciences (ie, figuring out peoples oppinions, thoughts, motives, values, ect.) over "natural" sciences. I tried to adapt it to be as flexible as possible though. It may also be possible to simply omit unnecessary parts. For example, the angle project, no, you don't really need a hypothesis, but the stuff about literature review, ect. could be very helpful.

    I also have some changes that I'll make before release, the most notably being I want to go more in detail with types of research. Maybe some more definitions as well.

    The publishing article will be the next one. Its pretty straight forward though, basically apply the concepts in this into an article form post-research. I also wrote this in the tenative format I was using, so that should give you an idea of what it will look like.

  5. strat1227
    Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 01:46:47

    hmm... actually i really like the idea of all research being done like this... i mean, even if you don't do half the steps, just write "step one- omitted because unnecisary" or something like that. that way, everything's accounted for. and also people can look on and say "hmm, maybe step one is needed because blah blah blah".... it kinda makes sure that it extenguishes all possible research...

  6. Zombo
    Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 03:13:43

    looks good, it's basicalyl the scientific method adapated to PS.

    1. There might not always be a hypothesis. If you do discovery of new tricks, you can't really formulate a good hypothesis. It would end up being "We believe that trick X can be expended into a new spin family" or something.

    2. steps 4, 5, 6 only applies to research which require experiements. In some cases, the study is purely theoretical in nature and only involves argumentation or discussion.

  7. strat1227
    Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 18:01:08

    yea, thats definatly true.

    but i think research should be done in the steps...

    like to open a new project you say "ok, i have step one: blah blah blah a question/problem"

    Directors open the project, then you move on to step two: every links to every thread or anything they know about it.

    then move to step three: if there needs a hypothesis, make one. if not, move to step four and five: do the experiment (if there is one. if it's something like zombo said, then you just do all the discussion and throw out ideas and stuff.)


    towards the end of the project, you'd be moving on to six: we'd all discuss the findings, see what we can make of it. (if in steps four and five you just had discussion and threw out ideas, this is where you'd pick the best idea)

    then you just keep going untill 9 ... which we'll talk more about later biggrin.gif

    so basically any research can be done in these steps, i think we should, it lets the most possible research be done.

  8. Zombo
    Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 20:23:53

    those steps are not too bad hard to follow, the problem with most projects is that you stall in steps 4,5,6 cuz you run out of ideas... so yo uhave nothing to say until somebody gets a new idea. so you need a method to make sure you're never stuck or thats its easy to get out of those holes.

  9. Eburt
    Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 23:58:55

    Yeah, I'm going to have to add some stuff for the flexibility of different types of research. Some things just simply may ot work well in this format though...

    As for finding a way to not get stuck... well, c'mon Zombo. We have like probably a good 30 projects that are stagnant because people ran out of ideas... I don't see much that can be done about it. Sometimes there is just insufficient ideas/data to continue the research at that time...

    Oh, and added Zombo and strat to contributors.

  10. Zombo
    Date: Thu, Sep 20 2007 00:21:13

    ok well maybe you're stuck but you suggest alternative ways to approach the problem just to keep the conversation going, if you keep pushing, the door opens eventually.

  11. Eburt
    Date: Thu, Sep 20 2007 03:32:05

    Just a note to say that this sort of thing (PS skill correlation to % of hand that is finger length), would be perfect to use with this method. http://www.upsb.info/forum/index.php?showt...&#entry6976

    Also, yeah, Zombo... I'll throw something in about that, but I still see the same thing happening. Can't hurt though.

  12. Eburt
    Date: Sun, Apr 20 2008 04:53:48

    Updated the first post to reflect some changes (mostly format) and say that I actually want to publish this work in the wiki soone, like sometime this week. I'll do so if I recieve positive/no feedback. I'd like to actually get back into PS research soon, so I want to use this and would prefer not to delay any longer.