Comments on: Secondary research http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/06/25/secondary-research/ Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:12:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: chuck http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/06/25/secondary-research/comment-page-1/#comment-3080 chuck Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:05:41 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/06/25/secondary-research/#comment-3080 My grandmother, a social worker, always said that studying sociology was useless, instead one should just read literature for insight into people. Which fits in somewhat tangentially to what you are saying. Also, you are lazy. My grandmother, a social worker, always said that studying sociology was useless, instead one should just read literature for insight into people. Which fits in somewhat tangentially to what you are saying.

Also, you are lazy.

]]> By: Eric http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/06/25/secondary-research/comment-page-1/#comment-3076 Eric Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:20:23 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/06/25/secondary-research/#comment-3076 I think the difference is that meta-analysis (based on a 10-second glance at that page) is a way of increasing statistics, but still designed to answer the fundamental underlying question of drug efficacy (or whatever). So it's still gathering more scientific information itself in some sense. The point I was trying to make applies more to humanities, in the sense that primary research means going back to the original text, whereas I was thinking about ignoring the original text and just observing people's interpretations of the text. It would be as if the meta-analysis threw out all of the original data, and just analyzed the ways in which the original data was referenced. Or something like that. I think the difference is that meta-analysis (based on a 10-second glance at that page) is a way of increasing statistics, but still designed to answer the fundamental underlying question of drug efficacy (or whatever). So it’s still gathering more scientific information itself in some sense.

The point I was trying to make applies more to humanities, in the sense that primary research means going back to the original text, whereas I was thinking about ignoring the original text and just observing people’s interpretations of the text. It would be as if the meta-analysis threw out all of the original data, and just analyzed the ways in which the original data was referenced. Or something like that.

]]> By: Bug http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/06/25/secondary-research/comment-page-1/#comment-3074 Bug Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:00:41 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/06/25/secondary-research/#comment-3074 Is there any difference between what you're calling <i>secondary research</i> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis" rel="nofollow">meta-analysis</a>, which is pretty common in medicine and drug studies? Is there any difference between what you’re calling secondary research and meta-analysis, which is pretty common in medicine and drug studies?

]]>