mostly research stuff
okay, some clarification for folks who keep reading about “primary and secondary” research all over this site (including folks who were emailing me)…Primary and Secondary Research explained: (warning to you overly sensitive types: though folks might disagree with me here, the following definitions are usually well-suited to describe Primary and Secondary research and might help site visitors who are not familiar with these terms)
Primary research is generally known as research gathered through brief or in-depth interviews, primarily by telephone or in person (sometimes by email), with industry and association sources (or people in general) likely to be knowledgeable about organizational (or other relevant) activity, including: a competitor’s employees, an analyst or industry pundit (’spectators’), an organizational alum, partners to the organization (marketing, development, banking, etc), your own colleagues and peers, or some other type of unusual source (such as ‘the mysterious person in the photograph’). Communicating with the dead through special ceremonies is not considered to be a reliable primary research method. Also, this excludes 900 numbers, as well as indefatigable bullshitters like the analysts at firms such as IDC, Forrester, Jupiter, Gartner et al.
Secondary research is generally known as research acquired through “secondary resources,” (gosh! that helps!)… or via 3rd parties one-step removed from conversation or direct interaction with a primary research ’source.’ This includes magazines and periodicals, library resources, online and offline databases, electronic media (television, radio, et al), emerging new media resources (e.g. blogs) as well as other published or in-house research already in existence, or in the case of 3rd parties this would mean hearsay. However, getting information from song lyrics doesn’t count (well… not usually). Also, if you’re now going to lay back and start watching tons of TV - but plan to bill your supination back to clients - then you better rethink your game plan, because that idea sucks. While magazines like Playboy might in fact print high quality interviews, researchers should be more careful with publications like BusinessWeek, Time, Newsweek and any other mainstream pub that might be considered by people like Chomsky to be under the control of middle aged white people with ulterior motivations.
that’s about it for now. feel free to ping me or comment on this if you disagree. unless i become a library science convert, these are the guidelines that i’ll continue to use when making such references…(many librarians disagree with these definitions, per a few emails that i got when i wrote this article).
this blog is mostly safe for work, though i sometimes throw around a 'fuck' or two. you'll find a bunch of my articles from CI Magazine, SCIP online, other research pieces and some other crap. enjoy. there's lost of content here related to getting information about, around, from and through people and organizations...
Leave a reply