1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Second Language Studies
  4. Volume 8, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The current position paper is a brief account of the pitfalls I have found in the research manuscripts I have reviewed over a period of twenty years. As a review panel member of several academic journals, I encountered several problems in the submissions I have been asked to review, both minor ones and those beyond repair. In this paper, I intend to report my observations with a focus on what I may call unsophisticated and simplistic treatment of the findings. To put it briefly, while some submissions are rightly rejected due to sloppy data collection, biased sampling, or erroneous use of statistics, there are papers that succeed in following the strict methodological do’s and don’ts of research but fail to make sense of the bulk of the collected data, leading to fixation at the lower levels of Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy. I will try to address this issue, postulating that inadequate practice of critical thinking and other higher-order thinking skills such as analytical reasoning, evaluation, and inference could be partly responsible for this caveat. The paper ends with suggestions for educating would-be researchers not only by teaching the principles of conducting research but also by encouraging creativity, critical evaluation of information, and a genuine search for knowledge. Such qualities may not readily lend themselves to objective measurement and can hardly be translated into numerical indices by which research impact is estimated but they seem to add to the meaningfulness of research findings in the field.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00046.bab
2025-04-22
2026-01-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00046.bab
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aksnes, D., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P.
    (2019) Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basics, concepts and theories. SAGE Open, January-March 2019: 1–17. 10.1177/2158244019829575
     https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baltes, P., & Smith, J.
    (2008) The fascination of wisdom: Its nature, ontogeny, and function. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 3 (1), 56–64. 10.1111/j.1745‑6916.2008.00062.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00062.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Baškarada, S., & Koronios, A.
    (2013) Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom (DIKW): A semiotic theoretical and empirical exploration of the hierarchy and its quality dimension. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18 (1), 5–24. https://ajis.aaisnet.org/index.php/ajis/article/view/748. 10.3127/ajis.v18i1.748
     https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v18i1.748 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bassey, M.
    (1995) Creating education through research: A global perspective of educational research for the 21st century. Kirklington Moor Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L.
    (2014) Scientometrics in a changing research landscape. EMBO Reports, 15 (12), 1228–1232. 10.15252/embr.201439608
     https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439608 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carlisle, J.
    (2015) Continuing the DIKW Hierarchy Conversation. Midwest MWAIS 2015 Proceedings. 81. aisel.aisnet.org/mwais2015/8
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chaffey, D., & Wood, S.
    (2005) Business information management: Improving performance using information systems. Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Curtis, G., & Cobham, D.
    (2005) Business information systems: Analysis, design and practice. Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Egbert, J.
    (2007) Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41, (1), 157–171. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00044.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00044.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Eliot, T. S.
    (1934) The Rock. Faber and Faber.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Faintuch, J., & Faintuch, S.
    (2022) Past and current status of scientific, academic research fraud. InJ. Faintuch, & S. Faintuch (Eds.), Integrity of scientific research fraud, misconduct and fake news in the academic, medical and social environment (pp.3–8). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑99680‑2_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fumerton, R.
    (2020) Is scientific knowledge special? Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. InK. McCain, & K. Kampourakis (Eds.), What is scientific knowledge: An introduction to contemporary epistemology of science (pp.132–143). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Isaac, T., & Chalmers, H.
    (2023) Reducing ‘avoidable research waste’ in applied linguistics research: Insights from healthcare research. Language Teaching, 1–18. 10.1017/S0261444823000411
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000411 [Google Scholar]
  14. Isbell, D., Brown, D., Chen, M., Derrick, D., Ghanem, R., Gutiérrez Arvizu, M. N., Schnur, E., Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L.
    (2022) Misconduct and questionable research practices: The ethics of quantitative data handling and reporting in applied linguistics. Modern Language Journal, 1061, 172–195. 10.1111/modl.12760
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12760 [Google Scholar]
  15. Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M.
    (2023) On the prevalence and perceived severity of questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 21, 100064. 10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100064
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100064 [Google Scholar]
  16. Laudon, K., & Laudon, J.
    (2014) Management information systems: Managing the digital firm. Pearson Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee, I.
    (2014) Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing. Language Teaching, 47 (2), 250–261. 10.1017/S0261444811000504
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000504 [Google Scholar]
  18. Levitt, H., & Piazza-Bonin, E.
    (2016) Wisdom and psychotherapy: Studying expert therapists’ clinical wisdom to explicate common processes. Psychotherapy Research, 26(1), 31–47. 10.1080/10503307.2014.937470
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.937470 [Google Scholar]
  19. Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T., & Skedsmo, G.
    (2018) Teachers’ use of knowledge sources in ‘result meetings’: Thin data and thick data use. Teachers and Teaching, 24(1), 37–49. 10.1080/13540602.2017.1379986
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1379986 [Google Scholar]
  20. Montoneri, B.
    (2020) Fake news and fake research, from the cave to the light: Critical reflection and literature review. InB. Montoneri (Ed.), Academic misconduct and plagiarism: Case studies from universities around the world (pp.167–198). Lexington Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Murtonen, M., & Salmento, H.
    (2019) Broadening the theory of scientific thinking for higher education. InM. Murtonen, & K. Balloo, (Eds.), Redefining scientific thinking for higher education (pp.3–29). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑24215‑2_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24215-2_1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nederhof, A., Luwel, M., & Moed, H.
    (2001) Assessing the quality of scholarly journals in Linguistics: An alternative to citation-based journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 241–265. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010533232688
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Nygaard, L.
    (2017) Publishing and perishing: an academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (3), 519–532. 10.1080/03075079.2015.1058351
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1058351 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pearlson, K. & Saunders, C.
    (2004) Managing and using information systems: A strategic approach. Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M.
    (2024) A taxonomy of questionable research practices in quantitative humanities. InP. De Costa, A. Rabie-Ahmed, & C. Cinaglia (Eds.) Ethical issues in applied linguistics scholarship (pp.10–27). John Benjamins. 10.1075/rmal.7.01plo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.7.01plo [Google Scholar]
  26. Pritchard, D.
    (2018) What is this thing called knowledge?Routledge. 10.4324/9781351980326
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326 [Google Scholar]
  27. Resnick, L.
    (1987) Education and learning to think. National Academy Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Rowley, J.
    (2007) The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 331, 163–180. 10.1177/0165551506070706
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506070706 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sowey, E.
    (2003) The getting of wisdom. The American Statistician, 57(2), 89–93. 10.1198/0003130031478
     https://doi.org/10.1198/0003130031478 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sternberg, R. J.
    (1998) A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 21, 347–365. 10.1037/1089‑2680.2.4.347
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.4.347 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ziman, J.
    (2002) Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Zimmerman, C.
    (2007) The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 271, 172–223. 10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00046.bab
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): data use; DIKW hierarchy; higher-order thinking; knowledge construction; knowledge pyramid; peer review; research quality

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error