Invention Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I removed the outputs section; I would consider that out of scope for this navbox, since there are already other navboxes devoted to ((Academic publishing)) and ((Science and the public)), and it's not possible to do justice to those subjects here without adding too much redundant content to this navbox. Biogeographist (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fuck off christopher mcclelland on taft 2603:8081:82F0:A010:4861:43E5:33DF:A9A6 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist: Agreed. Jamzze (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jamzze: 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.

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 WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. For example, you shouldn't link to [[Deductive]], which is a redirect; instead you should link to [[Deductive reasoning|Deductive]]. Then the link will turn black in the navbox on the Deductive reasoning page. Biogeographist (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist: 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 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. Jamzze (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ((Learning)) and ((Logic)). Biogeographist (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 page e.g. 'Induction (research)'. Jamzze (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist: 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'. Jamzze (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: "I don't always do research—but when I do, I wear my white coat", or: "... when I do, I wear my imaginary white coat". 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 Biblioteca Vasconcelos, which looks like something out of a science fiction set to me. Biogeographist (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist: The current image is not ideal as it perpetuates the stereotype & dominance we have on Wikipedia 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 would be better to perhaps choose one with either no real people shown (only icons), or a wider variety of people. EMsmile (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I already said above to Jamzze: Feel free to take a shot at improving on the image. Biogeographist (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replaced it with a different image: No men and no white coats! Biogeographist (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've undone the change. I do not think that File:Donnelly and Eluvathingal.jpg is a particularly good image here. Looking at the thumbnail is WP:ASTONISHing. 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. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 do could find the photo perplexing. I will let someone else take another shot at improving on the image. Biogeographist (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 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 WP:ASTONISHing? 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. EMsmile (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 template. Biogeographist (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Biogeographist (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like this picture! Jamzze (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like it as well! Good job, Biogeographist! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent, good choice, Biogeographist!EMsmile (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Geysirhead: I removed the scientometrics section that you added. Above in § Removed outputs, 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 ((Academic publishing)) template. Biogeographist (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist: Scientometrics are also covered by ((Science and technology studies)). Both ((Science and technology studies)) and ((Academic publishing)) are navboxes. There is no sidebar, which covers scientometrics. I added it to research template to cover research on research not academic publishing as whole. Regarding my intention, would you rather agree with a separate scientometrics template? @Jamzze: your opinion is invited as well.--Geysirhead (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A separate scientometrics template sounds good to me. Bibliometrics already appears under secondary research under methods here. Biogeographist (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Would the other meta-research topics E.g. bibliometrics, literature review, etc. also need to be moved? Jamzze (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Biogeographist (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]