Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 23 May '14 10:47 / 8 edits
    Is there a conventional scientific name (possibly postfixed with "-ology" ) for the study of research itself i.e. research into research?
    I am especually interested to know is there a special name specifically for research into research tools (such as for better microscopes, computers for simulations, better machines for chemical analysis etc ) for speeding up science research and/or reducing the cost of science research?
    The reason why I want to know is because I would have good use for such a word because I am writing a book and am finding the inconvenience of having to repeat the words "research into research" and "research into research tools" many times in my book.
    I tried various google searches such as for "researchology" or "metaresearch" but got nowhere because there is apparently no such words.
    I suppose if no such word exists for representing such a thing, the next purpose of this thread would be for us here to invent a new word especially for that. So what my next question would be is, does anyone here have any suggestions of a suitable new scientific name for this?
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    23 May '14 14:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    Is there a conventional scientific name (possibly postfixed with "-ology" ) for the study of research itself i.e. research into research?
    I am especually interested to know is there a special name specifically for research into research tools (such as for better microscopes, computers for simulations, better machines for chemical analysis etc ) f ...[text shortened]... n would be is, does anyone here have any suggestions of a suitable new scientific name for this?
    I found this under 'researching research':

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39838/title/Researching-Research/

    They named it 'meta-research'.
  3. 23 May '14 14:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I found this under 'researching research':

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39838/title/Researching-Research/

    They named it 'meta-research'.
    Arr that is good enough! I tried googling "metaresearch" but not "meta-research"!
    I think I will call it "metaresearch" in my book.
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    23 May '14 16:42 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    Arr that is good enough! I tried googling "metaresearch" but not "meta-research"!
    I think I will call it "metaresearch" in my book.
    I metaresearcher just last week
  5. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    26 May '14 13:47
    Originally posted by humy
    Is there a conventional scientific name (possibly postfixed with "-ology" ) for the study of research itself i.e. research into research?
    I am especually interested to know is there a special name specifically for research into research tools (such as for better microscopes, computers for simulations, better machines for chemical analysis etc ) f ...[text shortened]... n would be is, does anyone here have any suggestions of a suitable new scientific name for this?
    This is philosophy, so depending on what you are interested in it could come under the heading of epistomology, scientific method, meta-physics, or, as has already been noted, meta-research.
  6. 26 May '14 17:13 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    This is philosophy, so depending on what you are interested in it could come under the heading of epistomology, scientific method, meta-physics, or, as has already been noted, meta-research.
    No, what I am talking about here isn't philosophy but science. For example, research into developing a better microscope to do further research with that microscope ( just one example of one type of research into research ) would not be philosophy but science.What I am talking about here has nothing to do with epistemology nor meta-physics although I guess it may be argued that it could be made to be part of scientific method although that isn't an essential part of what defines what scientific method actually is.
  7. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    26 May '14 18:06
    Originally posted by humy
    No, what I am talking about here isn't philosophy but science. For example, research into developing a better microscope to do further research with that microscope ( just one example of one type of research into research ) would not be philosophy but science.What I am talking about here has nothing to do with epistemology nor meta-physics although I guess it m ...[text shortened]... method although that isn't an essential part of what defines what scientific method actually is.
    For example, research into developing a better microscope to do further research with that microscope

    I'd put that under the heading of technology development. The motivation may be to do fundamental research, but the thing being developed is a technology.
    What I am talking about here has nothing to do with epistemology nor meta-physics although I guess it may be argued that it could be made to be part of scientific method although that isn't an essential part of what defines what scientific method actually is.

    I assume you mean equipment development is not an essential part of scientific method. I'd query that slightly. As kit for fundamental research becomes more advanced, complicated, and, above all, expensive one's ability to gather data improves to the point where systems have to change in order to cope with the sheer mass of data being collected. The clearest example of this is L.H.C. where they had to build a "level 1 trigger" whose job is to dump enough (hopefully uninteresting) data that the rest of the computing effort can cope. This raises interesting questions about whether one has the right to neglect data. So there is an interaction with scientific method.

    Traditionally meta-physics has been classed as the study of what one cannot measure and gain data on, thereby producing a neat division from physics which is about what one can measure. The problem is that physics theories are assumed to be valid even when there is not an observer, they predict unobservable things, and what we can gain data on is expanding. Really I think meta-physics should be classed as the overlap area between physics and philosophy.
  8. 27 May '14 17:14 / 1 edit
    I believe this involves what we have decided to call here "metaresearch" :

    http://phys.org/news/2014-05-combining-lasers-particle-kilometers-meters.html

    The 'metaresearch' part of this would be partly the part where research is done into making a particle accelerator shorter and therefore cheaper so either that we can afford to make more of them and thus do more research with them or, possibly I guess although it doesn't say this, so that we can build the next particle accelerator in less time so we can start to do more research with it sooner. The link also in effect says that the shorter accelerator should be able to do more experiments per second than the old longer ones so research into making that happen would also be 'metaresearch'.