6

What is the difference between the and tags? Should we merge them? If not, how do we draw a distinction between them?

3

Borrowing from ColeValleyGirl's idea, I propose we use the tags and .

2
  • 2
    I'm happy with this. It keeps the key distinction between questions about best practice (research-methods) and finding records that are relevant to a particular problem (records-search).
    – user104
    Oct 20 '12 at 15:31
  • 1
    I like these tags as well. For research-methods, perhaps the tag wiki could describe it as something like "General questions about how to conduct genealogy research and best practices for genealogy research." And for records-search, the description could be something like "Questions about searching for a specific record."
    – efgen
    Oct 20 '12 at 17:21
2

I would draw a differentiation between [tag: research] and a new tag research-methodology, using research for e.g. advice on how to locate specific types of records, and research-methodology for discussion of e.g. source citations, evidence analysis and other aspects of the research process.

4
  • 1
    Use of those tags would require everyone to understand the difference between research, research methods, and methodology already? Best keep it simple. Oct 10 '12 at 14:02
  • 2
    Maybe go for "research records" and "research process"? I think it's important to differentiate between 'Where can I look for X?' and 'How do I carry out high-quality research?' especially if we want to attract and retain a broad range of expertise.
    – user104
    Oct 10 '12 at 14:06
  • 1
    I really like ColeValleyGirl's suggestion. Research alone is redundant - almost every question in this site could be tagged with it. Research records would fit the question that Robert Shaw had regarding discarded research data - and research process is an easily understood term. @ColeValleyGirl - would you consider answering this using those two tags?
    – Jeni
    Oct 20 '12 at 11:26
  • @Jeni: I've done as you suggested.
    – user104
    Oct 20 '12 at 11:32
2

How about we split the baby. Have 1 tag for "research" and 1 tag for "methodology."

Genealogical research is problem solving in one form or another. Although each problem may have idiosyncrasies, we also engage in more common approaches to problem solving and so methodologies emerge. In my experience, research methodologies are prevalent in genealogy. If you were trying to solve a genealogical problem that involved a post-Civil War African American family in the south, you would use probably seek out expert methodologies that are different than those researching the genealogy of a Revolutionary War patriot in New England.

5
  • 1
    I endorse both the argument to retain the spirit of distinct tags and that to remove their visual similarity. If Tamura's argument about lack of understanding of methods and methodology is important, how about "process" for the more general tag.
    – Fortiter
    Oct 12 '12 at 0:32
  • 3
    I'm concerned that the purpose of the tags aren't obvious enough from the names.
    – user47
    Oct 20 '12 at 16:32
  • To clarify, @JustinY, do you mean you don't think a tag "research" would be obviously different from a tag "methodology?"
    – GeneJ
    Oct 20 '12 at 16:51
  • 1
    @GeneJ I mean that "research" could mean research methods or specific research tasks. That's the problem we have now.
    – user47
    Oct 20 '12 at 17:50
  • @GeneJ So I agree that we need to split the two ideas, but I don't think "research" and "methodology" are the best tag names.
    – user47
    Oct 20 '12 at 17:51
1

Maybe go for "research records" and "research process"? I think it's important to differentiate between 'Where can I look for X?' and 'How do I carry out high-quality research?' especially if we want to attract and retain a broad range of expertise.

[Moving a comment into an answer, as suggested by @Jeni.]

1
  • 1
    I would prefer that we keep "research-methods" instead of renaming it "research-process", but I really like the idea of "research-records", or "records-research". I think I'll add an answer for my variation.
    – user47
    Oct 20 '12 at 15:15

You must log in to answer this question.