I have seen the term "Researcher" bandied about with great regularity in the BF "field".
So, I am wondering....
Just what is "Research"...
and, how do you become an official "Researcher"..??
Is simply walking around in the woods research?
taking pictures of the woods, and later finding all manner of squatches hanging in the trees...is this "Research"?
Short answer, is, no.
In my mind, research is something that at least has the potential to make possible the documentation of this creature, and more than that, I would say it has to follow a set of defined goals, and be strictly slaved to the scientific method...in other words, it is experimentation with a defined goal or set of goals in mind.
....and it is here that bigfoot "Research" generaly falls far short of the mark.
A chemist simply mixing random chemicals in test tubes COULD be said to be "researching"...but that would be a stretch at best, and in many ways, I think much the same could be said of the vast majority of bigfoot "research". It is just random, if often enjoyable, forays into the woods with camera and or casting material in hand.
I don't see much in the way of progressive, scientificaly based analysis or goal-oriented progression in the field.
I have even caught myself almost saying that I am going to do some "field research"....when I am really doing nothing of the sort.
Some time ago, I posted a related topic in the "researcher" section, wondering why report databases don't generaly include the information that would make them a truly usefull tool for those wanting to use such databases for other then light reading. This "mini-rant" I guess, is just a progression of that frustration.
I don't think that there is NO true research going on...I suspect that there is, and some of it is happening to a degree with some members of this forum. But, when I see comments such as "I have been researching for XX years"...I have to wonder...exactly what have you been researching, and more so, HOW have you been following a research agenda that has a stated objective. I don't think that just taking pics of the woods, and driving around on backroads really qualifies. I don't think that even if you occasionaly find tracks, or if you have taken a number of pictures of such questionable things as tree breaks" and such..that it really qualifies as research in the true, scientific manner.

...I am not even sure I understand what I just wrote.....

I guess I just want to see what others think. IS there really any TRUE, measureable, goal oriented and progression-measure research going on in the BF community?

I really don't think so.
I think there is a great deal of investigation in this field. I think most of the people in the field are investigating, and therfore, while they may add to the eventual knowlege base of any possible creature, they are not(WE are not) actualy Researching anything...

For perspective...when I go up north later this month, and look around the area that allegedly has provided an ongoing encounter with BF...I will NOT be "researching" in any real sense.
I will be investigating...which is something different.
We have lots of investigators of Bigfoot...but very few Researchers....IMHO.
So...the next time you start to say you are going "researching"...think about what it really means, and what you are really doing.
You are much more likely to be going "Investigating"....but as to you doing true research, along the lines of that done with known animals...I doubt if much of that is going on at all.

ok, hope I don't make anyone mad, as I am NOT saying that what is happening is not usefull...it most certainly is...
But, I just think that a much better title for most everyone in the field would be investigator..NOT researcher...

Ok, first off, i'm not upset. I can relate to your frustrations.

But, IMHO, how can you define set goals to an unknown ? Its like trying to prove a negative.

Investigating is simply the collection of factoids and physical evidence, or trying to determine if a witness is telling the truth.

Researching, can include the study of behavior patterns and habitat habits. It can also include the social study of these unknown animals.
There are alot of primate studies done in the same manner, i mean, without seeing the animals directly. These are done thru tracks, bedding sites, sightings, etc.

Yes, you can do things along the lines of scientific methods, documentation of evidence (tracks, scat, spoor) , mapping the area useing the archeological methods.

There are several types of research. Some choose to research the existing documentations (writings of others, eyewitness accounts, track casts, archieves), others catalog the documentation (like John Greens work in his report collections) , some research the sites of encounters, others choose to seek out undocumented things, and others still choose to be actively aquiring documentation. Its when all these peoples work is put together, that a bigger picture emerges and a light will go on in someones head. That makes it all worth it.

Research begins with investigating. Its when looking for answers to questions that occur during investigating, that we begin to research, and then theres still more questions arising out of it.

We all are a part of it, no matter what level of involvement you choose to be. Relax. Enjoy Aint mysteries Great ???

I think of a researcher as someone who comes up with a hypothesis first and then does the research/analysis to prove/disprove.

Even though you are just "investigating" in the field, you are also attempting to disprove the general public's hypothesis that "Sasquatch does not exist."

you're like an investigative researcher


I guess a pure researcher would come up with specific, testable hypothesis. Like "Sasquatch hates coleslaw", which apparently, the TN farm was unable to disprove.

Well, that's the thing RB..you cannot research the unknown. You can certainly investigate it, and at some point that investigaton might well lead to research . But, as you stated, set goals can't really be done with something not yet established as fact, so again I think even the study of tracks, photos, and such, is still in the investigation phase, and not YET in the true research phase.
And, like I said, I DO think there is some limited true research going on....but my point was mainly directed to all of those folks who glibly toss out the term every time they take a drive into the woods .
For the most part, this is not research. Heck, even calling it investigation is a stretch .

Now Night, you just confused the heck out of me.

I looked up research just to see if I qualified.. :rolleyes:

Research
1 : careful or diligent search
2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject

1 : to search or investigate exhaustively <research a problem>
2 : to do research for <research a book>
intransitive senses
: to engage in research
- re·search·able /ri-'s&r-ch&-b&l, 'rE-"/ adjective
- re·search·er noun

Do I qualify? Well, I have researched many things in my life as Im sure we all have. I hope that's not a bad thing. It's just a word that we use to describe what we do. There are many ways to research. I think it takes time to get that info that you mentioned that will make a difference. I just hope someone finds it before too long. And it doesnt have to be me.

Now if I start claiming to be a professional anything, slap me, will ya?

Nw, so we disagree on this. And thats ok.


But, you would agree that Paris is the capitol of France, right ?
Good, then we're back in agreement.

Paris, TX, is the capitol of France!?! The hell, you say!

Hmm...you are making me think(how scary is that?)
Your definitions make me think that it's more likely that the difference between research and investigation is not cut and dry....and maybe not really there at all.
My thoughts on research vs investigation may be better illustrated with an example.
A police detective who is in the field, looking at a murder scene, is not researching...but instead, investigating. That is what I feel we can compare almost all field work in the BF area too...a crime scene investigation...NOT, of course, that seeing a squatch is a crime, but that the field techniques after the fact are in essense the same as those in a crime scene investigation. Now, that detective who is pulling finger prints, taking shoe-inprint casts, looking for fibers..is not researching murder as a subject, he or she is instead Investigating a murder...
See the difference?
Now, if that same detective goes down into the records room, and pulls out a bunch of cold cases in order to try to determine a pattern...they are now indeed researching the case, as opposed to investigating the scene..
So, I suspect, we are all correct. Most investigators have to do some research into the subject.
Field work is not research, but for the most part investigation.
However, reviewing past sightings, and databases or information obtained from them...is indeed research.
How ironic, that in some way, the oft-maligned "armchair researcher" indeed, has more claim to the title than does someone who insists that the only valid work is field work!
Opps, let a bit of the reasoning behind my initial post slip out there.....
I was cruising a few other boards this evening, when I noticed how often the term "armchair researcher" was used in a derisive manner. I just found it ironic that in reality, it's the "armchair" folks who are by definition, doing the pure research, while the field people are more likely doing invstigative evidence gathering.
But, I will stick to my guns on the idea that when someone says "I am going out camping and researching this weekend"......they are really not quite correct.
They may go camping, and investigating an area, but as for research, that would have to wait until they got home to compare what they found to other reports.
In the end, symantics, I suspect. I guess my concern is that anyone seems to be able to call themselvs a researcher, when indeed, many are not doing research in the classical sense.
Ah, heck, I am even confusing myeslf now
But I am SURE there is a difference, somehow, between the person taking a bunch of pictures of shadows and calling them bigfoot....and what Jane Goodall has done with apes...
Both can't be doing "research" in the same term.
And maybe what most of the rest of us are doing is something in between?
Oh, and Rob, sorry and embarased to call you RB I still confuse ya'll on occasion

Nope, wrong...
Paris is a small town just north of Big Rapids, Michigan...
I grew up there, so I should know

I guess its like bikers , some have really expensive bikes, others have rat bikes. Some ride em all the time, others ride em once or twice a summer. Some, just own a tee shirt :rolleyes: .

Is a parrot, who stays on his perch all year on someones breakfast nook really as parroty as a wild parrot flying thru the rainforest? True, it is a parrot, but how much of a parrot? (quick, shove me in the shallow water, before i get too deep)

Investigating and research, almost go hand in hand, but to what extent someone does these things varies greatly i guess.

OK, gonna go research whats for dinner now, then do some research on the tellevision, then go research the bathroom ... i may find some new species of fungus under the baseboard heaters

hmmmm....I think I'll be lurker. I lurk the trails...I lurk on the backroads...I lurk with the door to the fridge open... I'm not sure it really matters...its like a catch all on what you want to define yourself as.I do research and read reports.But I also attempt to investigate both old sightings or possibilities of activity based on the research of others that I have read and what I've concluded myself for the moment...maybe there isnt even a terminology available to describe what we do...given the varying degrees of involvement or time invested.Or it falls into both categories or none...Its just a term we use to describe what we do ..wether its correct or not is a matter we have to decide for ourselves,whatever you feel comfortable calling it. talk about not being sure if you made sense.....