 |
 |
On 10/11/2010 3:56 PM, ray kirk wrote: > Is it research? that is the question. This comes up for me from time to > time, so its not new. Conducting systematic reviews, health technology > assessments, and meta-analyses, to name a few of the methods we use, is > it research? I am currently having this debate with my academic > institution who believe (well some do and quite strongly) that its not > research. Of course, I believe it is, we create new knowledge, apply it > in new ways, to create new outcomes. The counter argument focuses on - > "its secondary data analysis, isn't it?" and therefore, /ipso facto/, > its not research. I suppose it comes down to what you define as research > and then - is what we do a fit for the definition. I welcome your > thoughts on-line or off-line. The definition that most IRBs use for research comes from the Department of Health and Human Services. "DHHS regulations define research as a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.102 All of the activities that you describe are systematic and they do contribute to generalized knowledge. As a statistician, I am shocked that anyone would even consider secondary data analysis as not being research. Some of the most important research findings I have helped with have been secondary data analyses. -- Steve Simon, Standard Disclaimer Sign up for The Monthly Mean, the newsletter that dares to call itself "average" at www.pmean.com/news