Guest GoLd Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Hello everyone, After the daisey in a box debocle, it occured to me that a lot of people with out any discernable credentials call themselves "researchers" or a "research group". I was just curious what the definition and/or standard is, to be considered a researcher or a research group is? The Merriam-Webster dictionary describes research as the following. 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 With the term researcher being a noun to describe someone who does research. After reading the dictionary's definition, I now see that anyone can claim to be a researcher and it has become clearer that the term is kind of meaningless. Understanding the definition gives me a new perspective on the subject, after all, since I spent 5 minutes researching the word research, I now consider myself a research researcher On a more serious note, I think that my own personal definition of the term will be extended to those that have academic credentials, as in a professional researcher who has academic standards to follow; Such as Meldrum, Sykes and Disotell among others. What does everyone else think? GoLd Edited January 11, 2013 by GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 “Researcherâ€: Someone who “Researchesâ€. 'Nuff said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Yes Kite-Squatch, I already said that the definition is the noun to research, you seemed to miss the rest of the definition. The reason I posted this query is because so many claim to be researchers but few actually fit the definition The Merriam-Webster dictionary describes research as the following. 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 With the term researcher being a noun to describe someone who does research. Calling oneself a researcher seems to offer a certian level of credibility, as well as a defense against criticism. My point is that I'm hoping for a discusion that will identify what is a legitimate researcher and what isn't, as an example; most websites dedicated to the subject of bigfoot have claims to being a research group, but most are self appointed and do not adhere to the definition. Perhaps the answer is, until you are proven to be a hoaxer then you are a researcher, which seems to be the case most of the time. GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Anyone can research the bigfoot phenomenon. Research an actual bigfoot? Ah, no. Personally, I prefer the phrase 'bigfoot enthusiast'. It's descriptive without being misleading. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Calling oneself a researcher seems to offer a certian level of credibility, as well as a defense against criticism. My point is that I'm hoping for a discusion that will identify what is a legitimate researcher and what isn't, as an example; most websites dedicated to the subject of bigfoot have claims to being a research group, but most are self appointed and do not adhere to the definition. I like Rays "Enthusiasts" answer. I get a kick out of " Bigfoot Expert" what is that anyway, how can one be an expert on something they can't even find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Yes Kite-Squatch, I already said that the definition is the noun to research, you seemed to miss the rest of the definition. Yes, I read what you wrote. I still wanted to 'voice' my “two centsâ€.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) All right, now we starting to get to the meat. The reason I started thinking about this topic, was after reading through the various, and occasionally contradicting, opinions in the hoaxers threads. In my opinion many of those who are commonly reffered to as researchers follow only one of the definitions of research, Number 3 the collection of information on a particular subject. I also think that there is far too few "researchers" who subscribe to, and apply, the other two definitions; 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 I think that we are responsible to vet our own resources, we must have standards of credibility and we must decide who the researchers are, not them. Much like Rick Dyers claim of being the worlds best bigfoot tracker, I'm fairly confident that this is a self appointed title. The MABRC situation is a perfect example, when you consider them to be acting as researchers (since the word research is the R in their name), my assumption was that they would follow a certian amount of due diligence and protocol in vetting the information they attach their names too. This assumption, and we all know what assuming gets you, is what makes things like Ed Smith so disappointing, and for many, feeling angry at being deceived agian. But they are only researchers in the sense that they collect information on a single subject, and for me, when I put it into that perspective, then they are no more than a Lindsay, Bigfoot Evidence or BFF. A place where information is usually more opinion than fact, with no standard and no culpability. That is why I started this thread, because after I got over being disappointed at being misled agian, I came to the conclusion that it was my fault, because I made the assumption that they are more than they are. So we have a list of possible or probable hoaxers, so who are the researchers? Who are enthusiasts? And what is the consensus definition? Now I have my definition of who and what is a researcher, and my standard is higher, atleast until the next time I allow some group or person to get my hopes up. GoLd Edited January 12, 2013 by GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I guess I qualify as doing 1 and 3. now 2... I will leave to bigfootery to argue and hash out , repeatably. Something they seem to enjoy doing. I'm about fed up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 12, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Well, I have a graduate degree, I'm published, and I don't do alot of research but I know how to do it if that is how I wish to engage in this hobby. That said, I could care less about the null hypothesis rejection re: Sasquatch as I've been close enough to them to realize there is little left for me to prove to myself in regard to the subject matter that anyone will take seriously anyways. So with the people I feel comfortable with I just let 'er rip, lol. Edited January 12, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Well, I have a graduate degree, I'm published, and I don't do alot of research but I know how to do it if that is how I wish to engage in this hobby. That said, I could care less about the null hypothesis rejection re: Sasquatch as I've been close enough to them to realize there is little left for me to prove to myself in regard to the subject matter that anyone will take seriously anyways. So with the people I feel comfortable with I just let 'er rip, lol. Ya! and, you still haven't let me onto the secret of those laser beams, you know how much I could save on my electric bill if I had a monkey in my kitchen with microwave eyes. Edited January 12, 2013 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Hi bipedalist, In a perfect world, as someone who claims to have both academic credibility as well first hand experiences of the big guy, what standards would you like to see in a bigfoot researcher? The Erickson Project's dynamic seems to fit my definition, unfortunately they have yet to offer any evidence. I'd also like to say that I have a great deal of respect for the people who spend their time, money and effort going out to try and find evidence and/or proof. GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I'd also like to say that I have a great deal of respect for the people who spend their time, money and effort going out to try and find evidence and/or proof. That goes without saying, it is the persistent ones that keep Bigfootin alive, but you also have to give credit to the skeptic's and alike cause together they (can't say we cause people jump on ya) all help to keep the hobby going ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Hi RRS, I like to think I have a healthy amount of respect for pretty much every person out there, which of course includes skeptics. But since you feel that I am remiss in not acknowledging the skeptics, the next time I'm on a skeptics forum, I'll be sure to thank them for all the time and effort they invest in disbelief GoLd Edited January 12, 2013 by GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 12, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 12, 2013 Hi bipedalist, In a perfect world, as someone who claims to have both academic credibility as well first hand experiences of the big guy, what standards would you like to see in a bigfoot researcher? The Erickson Project's dynamic seems to fit my definition, unfortunately they have yet to offer any evidence. I'd also like to say that I have a great deal of respect for the people who spend their time, money and effort going out to try and find evidence and/or proof. GoLd Three words: A Research Plan six words: and the money to back it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Hi Bipedalist, I think we are of the same mind, I like the Erickson Project as it appears, at least on the surface, to fit your criteria. Maybe I'm being a little generous, but I do like the fact that they claim to have a Phd in evolutionary biology on staff. Three words: A Research Plan six words: and the money to back it! The sad thing is that this was Ed Smiths description of the Quantra group, the more that I think about the Quantra silliness, the more it reminds me of a few Micheal Crichton novels, which coincidentally ended up having some basis in fact before the scientific ability to do so. GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts