3

Is it permissible to reuse a methodology in another context. e.g. One did a research on land surface temperature(LST) based on a model, say for it. Now is it legit to follow all the procedures of this research for forest loss modelling? Care that just majority are same (in methodology part) but one uses for LST and another for forest loss.

5

Yes, it is possible - it happens a lot. Epidemiological methods that originated in health have been applied to other fields, for example.

Doing it is easy.

Doing it rigorously, in keeping with the standards expected in academia, is really hard. It's hard because the source field's methodology usually has a lot of tacit assumptions built in. Identifying those, and testing they're applicable to the application field, is difficult. Lazy researchers don't bother doing that testing, and produce shoddy work as a result.

| improve this answer | |
  • I don't understand the last statement. As long as you have a good understanding of what the others are doing, copying their design would make doing research easier (or more accurately, less hard). – Maarten Buis Mar 31 '16 at 12:45
  • 2
    @MaartenBuis it's hard because the source field's methodology usually has a lot of tacit assumptions built in. Identifying those, and testing they're applicable to the application field, is difficult. Lazy researchers don't bother doing that testing, and produce shoddy work as a result. – 410 gone Mar 31 '16 at 13:07
  • @EnergyNumbers Thanks! Could you tell that this happens in physical science too. – SIslam Mar 31 '16 at 13:07
  • @SIslam it does - though I'd classify forest-loss modelling as life-sciences (as is health epidemiology) – 410 gone Mar 31 '16 at 13:09
  • 1
    And in turn, Epidemiology has a grand and glorious history of borrowing methods from other fields (says the Epidemiologist currently working with an algorithm designed for computational chemistry...) – Fomite Mar 31 '16 at 22:34
2

Yes, you can use a good design used in other contexts. You will need to cite the article. In practice, you will need to be very careful when writing the methodology section: It will necessarily be very close to the original article. If it gets too close, you'll run the risk of being accused of plagiarism.

| improve this answer | |
2

Can is the wrong term. Must is the correct one.

Research and science rely on the possibility to replicate and novel methods have always been the engine for new developments and achievements.

If you don't use your own method when it is appropriate to do it, why should other people bother?

Success in research and science often goes to those who have discovered new methods, rather than simply new ideas and theories. For instance, look at The Top 1000 Papers by Van Noorden et al, in Nature 2014. It is clear that the most successful articles are those reporting methods which can be successfully replicated and exploited for further research and applications.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.