EDITORIAL

So What Is Research Anyway?

Darlene F, Russ-Eft

Research findings take the form, roughly, of "X is Y" or "the probability of
an X having the feature Y is p"; in other words, they are states of the "is"
form, [Phillips, 1980, p, 19]
The outcome of research is new knowledge, obtained through an orderly,
investigative process, [Swanson, 1997, p, 10]
Traditionally, research has been conceptualized as the systematic, objective,
valid, reliable collection and analysis of empirical data to solve a problem
(applied research) or as a means to build theory and add to the existing
knowledge base (basic research), [Bettis & Gregson, 2001, p, 1]
Research is a cyclical process of steps that typically begins vvith identifying
a research problem or issue of study. It then involves reviewing the
literature, specifying a purpose for the study, collecting and analyzing data,
and forming an interpretation of the information. This process culminates
in a report, disseminated to audiences, that is evaluated and used, , , ,
[Creswell, 2002, p, 8]
Research: (1) careful or diligent search; (2) studious inquiry or examination;
especially: investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and
interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of
new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws;
(3) the collecting of information about a particular subject, [MerriamWebster Online, 2003]
Research can be regarded as a process of asking a question (or a related
series of questions) and then initiating a systematic process to obtain valid
answers to that question, [Meltzoff, 1998, p, 13]
Empirical research involves observation; it requires cases, measures, and
scores. Not all types of research [are] empirical. For example, computer
simulations generate scores from random number routines, , , , Analytical

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol, 15, no. 1, Spring 2004

Copyright 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

researchers use mathematical operations to work from initial assumptions

to conclusions. [Schwab, 1999, p. 8]
Research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It
consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world
visible. . . . Researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to
make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people
bring to them. [Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 3[
"Is X considered a research study?" "What about Y?" "So, what is research
anyway?" These are the questions that 1 faced this past weekend while leading
a group of doctoral students through a research course on analyzing and
interpreting research studies available in the literature. These questions arise
not only for graduate students but also for those interested in the research
published in Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ), Furthermore, the

definitions of research provided at the opening to this article give us some

insights but not the entire picture. So let us then consider the features that
distinguish a research study from some other type of investigation.
First, as mentioned in several, but not all of the definitions, research adds
new knowledge or develops new theories. In some cases, this new knowledge
may provide important insights, and in other cases this new knowledge may
simply extend previous findings or identify constraints and limitations. Examples appear throughout the pages of HRDQ, In one, Bierema and Cseh (2003)
found that only a small percentage of the HRD research literature dealt with
issues related to racism and sexism. Mattson (2003) showed that managers
considered certain types of reports more useful for decision making. Indeed,
each of these articles, as well as others in HRDQ, represents some new knowledge and provides an opportunity for you, the reader, to determine how to
apply this new knowledge.
It may be important to continue to add new knowledge. But does each
research paper need to contribute new knowledge? Is there not an obligation
to have some of this research confirm "old" knowledge, replicate (or potentially fail to replicate) findings from previous research, or link to some aspect
of professional practice? After all, in other research fields, it is important to
provide some evidence of replication (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003; Schwab, 1999)
or triangulation (Patton, 1990) or crystallization (Richardson, 2000) or
utilization (Patton, 1997). What appears to be lacking in HRD research is
a focus on replication or on confirming previous results (for the positivist
or post-positivist), on adding new facets (for the postmodernist), or on
contributing to HRD practices (for the practitioner).
A second feature of research, again mentioned in some but not all of the
definitions, is to be systematic and orderly and to use systematic and disciplined processes. Indeed, one of the main criticisms coming from HRDQ
reviewers revolves around a lack of description of such orderly, systematic, and

Editorial

disciplined processes. Here are a few examples, "The description of the data
gathering is , . , vague , , , [with] no discussion of how systematically this
occurred," wrote one reviewer On another manuscript, a reviewer stated that
it "failed to fully discuss the method of data collection specific to , , , research
methodologists,"
But do such orderly and systematic processes occur at all times in
research? Robinson and Stern (1998) describe the importance of serendipity
for creativity, innovation, and improvement. As these authors describe the
term, "Serendipity combines a happy accident with sagacity" (p, 193), Indeed,
several highly significant discoveries, such as the process for pasteurization,
the development of Teflon, or the creation of the ink-jet printer, occurred
because of some "happy accident" and a recognition that it might solve a problem. Yes, the researcher or scholar may have been working on that problem or
a related problem using systematic processes, but it was the accident, rather
than the systematic process, that resulted in the discovery. Furthermore, it was
not simply the accident that was involved but also the researcher's or scholar's
ability to comprehend or imagine the utility of the discovery.
Now it may seem to you, the reader, that all that has been presented here
is a series of conflicting ideas. Actually, these ideas are related. Although some
important research finding may result from serendipity, it cannot yield significant results unless it is understood and then communicated and disseminated widely Furthermore, the communication and dissemination process must
provide some transparency in the research. Only through a clear description
of the methods used in the researchhowever orderly or serendipitouscan
the findings be replicated, triangulated, crystallized, or used by others. So
perhaps the real hallmarks of research are disciplined inquiry, facilitating
sagacity, coupled with communication and dissemination that provide clearly
described methods and point to implications for future research and for
professional practice,
DARLENE F RUSS-EFT

EDITOR

References
Bettis, P. J., & Gregsoti, J. A. (2001), The why of research: Paradigtnatic and pragmatic considerations. In E. I. Farmer & J. W Rojewski (Eds.), Research pathways: Writing professional papers,
theses, and dissertations in workforce education. Lanham, MD; University Press of America,
Bierema, L. L., & Cseh, M. (2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (1), 5-26.
Creswell, J. W (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Denzin, N, K., &r Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y, S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gall, M, D,, Gall, J, P, & Borg, W R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.).
Boston: Allyn 6l Bacon.
Mattson, B. W (2003). The effects of alternative reports of human resource development results
on managerial support. Human Resource Development Quarterly 14 (2), 127-151.
Meltzoff, J, (1998). Critical thinking ahout research. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Merriam-Webster Online. lhttp://www.m-w.cotrt/cgi-bitt/dictionary]
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed,). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Phillips, D. C. (1980). What do the researcher and the practitioner have to offer each other?
Educational Researcher, 9 (11), 19.
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry In N. K, Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp, 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robinson, A, G,, & Stern, S. (1998). Corporate creativity: How innovation and improvement actually
happen. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Schwab, D, P, (1999), Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,
Swanson, R. A. (1997), HRD research: Don't go to work without it! In R. A. Swanson & E, E
Holton III (Eds,), Human resource development research handbook (pp. 3-20), San Erancisco:
Berrett-Koehler.