421:. The first impression is that I've no idea what kind of research those people are engaged in, or in fact if they are doing that at all. I first thought they are looking at a map, orienteering perhaps, and that a wrong image was inserted. Even looking at a full size image I don't know what I'm looking at. Only by reading the image description page I'll find out that they are examining a frog so tiny and obscured that I had to zoom in to see where it is. I think this image simply distracts and baits one into navigating to the image description page to find out what it's about. Sidebar images are decorative and they should give immediate reassurance that I'm about to click on links to the topics I'm looking for. I don't oppose changing the lab coats image, but this replacement was worse.
71:
53:
22:
462:? And we know which articles have included the research side bar - so perhaps by looking at those articles we'll find inspiration? I think I am leaning towards the use of icons, not real people. Or showing people from the back so that it's not clear which gender and ethnicity they have? Sorry, I don't want to come across as overly politically correct, just trying to come up with a simple solution.
234:
changes I made as they better reflect on the research process. Inductive, deductive, abductive approaches are key ways research is framed, I would suggest their individual pages need further updating to reflect their importance to the research process. Including these within the sidebar would be extremely beneficial for readers to link this within their learning of research overall.
458:
we try to find one with with either no real people shown (only icons), or a wider variety of people, i.e. a bigger group? Or we purposefully select one that is going against the stereotype and e.g. shows two
African women studying something in the field (i.e. purposefully not showing a lab type photo) - but without being too
442:
I guess I only knew what the women in the photo are doing because I searched for women scientists on
Wikimedia Commons, and that photo was in the search results, and I know what field biologists do, so I knew what was going on in the photo. I can see how someone unfamiliar with what field biologists
457:
Thank you for being open to changing the image. As one who criticised the current image, I am the first to admit that it's really hard to come up with one that will feel completely unbiased. Before hunting some down in
Wikimedia Commons I am just wondering how you feel about this suggestion: Should
288:
Thanks I have updated the name change. I agree as well that the current articles (deduction, induction, abduction) on these topics do not fit this navbox. I will potentially look at their content in the future to better incorporate the research element, or the potential need for a research specific
233:
thanks for this, I was refining these definitions. Inductive/ deductive, abductive approaches fits better, where as a research strategy better reflects describing qual, quant, etc from reading further on this through Bryam (2012) Social
Research methods. It would be important to revert back to the
367:
The current image is not ideal as it perpetuates the stereotype & dominance we have on
Knowledge (XXG) with white men... the image shows three men and one woman. At least they are not all white, but still. I know it's really hard to find an image that meets all of our criteria but I think it
476:
A graphic that emphasizes research as a process should be the aim, I think. It doesn't have to have people in it, it's just that images with people do convey that research is an activity. What I don't want to see is another image of library stacks. Libraries are great, but this is not a library
318:
Thank you for changing the image. It is potentially not inclusive, however, of research as it is specific to a particular part of it. Then again, saying that, it might be very difficult to find an inclusive image without having something specifically created to depict 'research'.
249:
I have no objection to changing "Approaches" to "Research strategies", but I'm not convinced that abductive/deductive/inductive belongs in the navbox for the reason I stated above: they are too general, not specific to research. Accordingly, they are already in the navboxes
192:
You suddenly completely redefined "Approaches"! Abductive/deductive/inductive is just a schema of types of inference commonly used in everyday life, not just in research, and so is not especially important for this navbox.
491:
I replaced the image with one that does not show people. It's a desk with a laptop computer and some papers. I imagine that most research groups these days face a scene somewhat like this at some stage of their research.
716:
I think probably not. Geysirhead was right that "research on research" (which I think overlaps with "secondary research") is a valid topic. But this template doesn't need all the details of different metrics.
596:, we agreed that this template is about the process of research, and the outputs of research are out of scope for this template; scientometrics are already covered in the
342:". Feel free to take a shot at improving on the image. I think anything with human figures in it would be more relatable than the impressive but very unusual
745:
750:
755:
642:
632:
87:
335:
334:
I know—when I chose the image I chuckled a little, thinking "I do research but I don't wear a white coat", which almost suggests a meme: "
414:
196:
Also, as I already mentioned in one of my edit summaries on this navbox, please don't link to redirects in navboxes, as explained at
125:
I removed the outputs section; I would consider that out of scope for this navbox, since there are already other navboxes devoted to
78:
58:
536:
433:
688:
A separate scientometrics template sounds good to me. Bibliometrics already appears under secondary research under methods here.
139:
33:
652:
600:
129:
145:, and it's not possible to do justice to those subjects here without adding too much redundant content to this navbox.
368:
would be better to perhaps choose one with either no real people shown (only icons), or a wider variety of people.
197:
702:
Agreed. Would the other meta-research topics E.g. bibliometrics, literature review, etc. also need to be moved?
722:
693:
611:
497:
482:
448:
404:
390:
351:
275:
217:
150:
39:
70:
52:
343:
658:
are navboxes. There is no sidebar, which covers scientometrics. I added it to research template to cover
443:
do could find the photo perplexing. I will let someone else take another shot at improving on the image.
532:
429:
86:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
459:
418:
679:
675:
587:
718:
689:
623:
607:
546:
521:
493:
478:
444:
400:
386:
362:
347:
313:
271:
228:
213:
209:
161:
146:
666:
as whole. Regarding my intention, would you rather agree with a separate scientometrics template?
554:
467:
373:
254:
707:
527:
511:
424:
324:
294:
239:
171:
264:
726:
711:
697:
683:
615:
558:
540:
515:
501:
486:
471:
452:
437:
408:
394:
377:
355:
328:
298:
279:
243:
221:
175:
154:
739:
550:
463:
369:
703:
669:
507:
320:
290:
235:
187:
167:
339:
83:
399:
I replaced it with a different image: No men and no white coats!
346:, which looks like something out of a science fiction set to me.
417:
is a particularly good image here. Looking at the thumbnail is
592:
I removed the scientometrics section that you added. Above in
336:
I don't always do research—but when I do, I wear my white coat
15:
208:. Then the link will turn black in the navbox on the
82:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
384:
Feel free to take a shot at improving on the image.
204:, which is a redirect; instead you should link to
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
8:
413:I've undone the change. I do not think that
338:", or: "... when I do, I wear my imaginary
47:
49:
383:
200:. For example, you shouldn't link to
96:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Invention
76:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
593:
628:Scientometrics are also covered by
382:As I already said above to Jamzze:
38:It is of interest to the following
674:your opinion is invited as well.--
415:File:Donnelly and Eluvathingal.jpg
289:page e.g. 'Induction (research)'.
14:
746:Template-Class Invention articles
751:NA-importance Invention articles
69:
51:
20:
756:WikiProject Invention articles
643:Science and technology studies
633:Science and technology studies
99:Template:WikiProject Invention
1:
520:I like it as well! Good job,
90:and see a list of open tasks.
356:01:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
329:23:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
299:23:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
280:22:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
244:22:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
222:22:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
176:22:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
155:13:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
772:
698:12:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
684:08:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
616:17:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
559:00:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
378:13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
727:13:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
712:15:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
541:22:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
516:15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
502:16:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
487:10:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
472:05:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
453:21:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
438:19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
409:18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
395:18:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
64:
46:
545:Excellent, good choice,
581:Removed scientometrics
506:I like this picture!
344:Biblioteca Vasconcelos
140:Science and the public
79:WikiProject Invention
660:research on research
664:academic publishing
653:Academic publishing
601:Academic publishing
210:Deductive reasoning
130:Academic publishing
102:Invention articles
34:content assessment
594:§ Removed outputs
118:
117:
114:
113:
110:
109:
763:
673:
657:
651:
647:
641:
637:
631:
627:
605:
599:
591:
530:
427:
366:
317:
269:
263:
259:
253:
232:
207:
203:
198:WP:NAVNOREDIRECT
191:
165:
144:
138:
134:
128:
104:
103:
100:
97:
94:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
771:
770:
766:
765:
764:
762:
761:
760:
736:
735:
667:
655:
649:
645:
639:
635:
629:
621:
603:
597:
585:
583:
525:
422:
360:
311:
309:
267:
261:
257:
251:
226:
205:
201:
185:
183:
159:
142:
136:
132:
126:
123:
121:Removed outputs
101:
98:
95:
92:
91:
12:
11:
5:
769:
767:
759:
758:
753:
748:
738:
737:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
719:Biogeographist
700:
690:Biogeographist
624:Biogeographist
608:Biogeographist
582:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
547:Biogeographist
522:Biogeographist
518:
494:Biogeographist
489:
479:Biogeographist
460:WP:ASTONISHing
445:Biogeographist
419:WP:ASTONISHing
401:Biogeographist
397:
387:Biogeographist
363:Biogeographist
348:Biogeographist
314:Biogeographist
308:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
283:
282:
272:Biogeographist
229:Biogeographist
214:Biogeographist
182:
179:
162:Biogeographist
147:Biogeographist
122:
119:
116:
115:
112:
111:
108:
107:
105:
88:the discussion
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
768:
757:
754:
752:
749:
747:
744:
743:
741:
728:
724:
720:
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
701:
699:
695:
691:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
671:
665:
661:
654:
644:
634:
625:
620:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
602:
595:
589:
580:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
529:
523:
519:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
490:
488:
484:
480:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
426:
420:
416:
412:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
396:
392:
388:
385:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
364:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
315:
306:
300:
296:
292:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
277:
273:
266:
256:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
230:
224:
223:
219:
215:
211:
199:
194:
189:
180:
178:
177:
173:
169:
163:
157:
156:
152:
148:
141:
131:
120:
106:
89:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
663:
659:
584:
310:
225:
195:
184:
158:
124:
77:
40:WikiProjects
29:
528:Finnusertop
425:Finnusertop
740:Categories
676:Geysirhead
606:template.
588:Geysirhead
477:template.
340:white coat
181:Approaches
93:Invention
84:Invention
59:Invention
537:contribs
434:contribs
255:Learning
166:Agreed.
30:template
638:. Both
551:EMsmile
464:EMsmile
370:EMsmile
704:Jamzze
670:Jamzze
508:Jamzze
321:Jamzze
291:Jamzze
236:Jamzze
212:page.
188:Jamzze
168:Jamzze
36:scale.
307:Image
265:Logic
28:This
723:talk
708:talk
694:talk
680:talk
662:not
648:and
612:talk
555:talk
533:talk
512:talk
498:talk
483:talk
468:talk
449:talk
430:talk
405:talk
391:talk
374:talk
352:talk
325:talk
295:talk
276:talk
260:and
240:talk
218:talk
172:talk
151:talk
135:and
742::
725:)
710:)
696:)
682:)
656:}}
650:{{
646:}}
640:{{
636:}}
630:{{
614:)
604:}}
598:{{
557:)
539:)
535:⋅
526:–
524:!
514:)
500:)
485:)
470:)
451:)
436:)
432:⋅
423:–
407:)
393:)
376:)
354:)
327:)
297:)
278:)
270:.
268:}}
262:{{
258:}}
252:{{
242:)
220:)
174:)
153:)
143:}}
137:{{
133:}}
127:{{
721:(
706:(
692:(
678:(
672::
668:@
626::
622:@
610:(
590::
586:@
553:(
549:!
531:(
510:(
496:(
481:(
466:(
447:(
428:(
403:(
389:(
372:(
365::
361:@
350:(
323:(
316::
312:@
293:(
274:(
238:(
231::
227:@
216:(
206:]
202:]
190::
186:@
170:(
164::
160:@
149:(
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
