Good Research:

Identifying what is good research

Noah T Nahinu
University of the Pacific

As we begin our journey through the doctoral program here at the University of the
Pacific, I am sure there will be one question that will come up many times even after we leave
the program and create our own research, what is good research? As I ponder a definitive answer
for the question of what is good research, I think to myself that if 100 people were asked the
same question, there would be one hundred different answers. As we progress through this paper,
I will share my working definition of what good research is, provide an example of an article that
I believe is good research, why the article can be deemed as a work of good research, and why I
chose this particular article. The goal of this paper is to display my thoughts of what good
research is and to defend why it is good research in hopes that you the reader can understand my
rationale of what good research can be.
First off to understand what good research is, we need to define what exactly good
research is. Everyone has a different definition of what good research is and my particular
definition of good research is as follows the ability to analyze data and progress to find patterns,
trends, and or answers to predetermined questions that might arise during a study. Many can
make the generalization that my definition of good research is very board, which it is for a very
good reason, I have to cover all my bases and try to not leave any room for criticism about my
definition of good research. I can elaborate and go in-depth about what constitutes good research
but since this paper is meant to be seven pages or less, we can save that for another paper or even
possibly a research study.
In addition to identifying what good research is, it helps to use an example. After
searching through numerous articles and trying to find one this really sticks out to me and makes
me realize that this author appeals to my taste of what good research can be, I chose an article
written by Corey Rumann and Florence Hamrick (2010). The name of the article is, Student

Veterans in Transition: Re-enrolling after War Zone Deployments. After reading this article
multiple times, I told myself that this is the style I want to emulate because it is both informative
and entertaining. This article grabbed my attention and held it throughout the entire article. More
often than not, my attention span can be rather short: a dull article will not keep my interest and
therefore might not be finished in one sitting. I would like my works to be just as good, if not
better, than Rumann and Hamrick. I want to capture the readers attention just as their article
captured my attention. The main research why I decided to choose Rumann and Hamricks
article is because I believe it is very good research. The next few paragraphs break down and
analyze the article and explain how and why I believe this article is good research.
First look at the article in a structural way. We will not get into the content just yet but
rather the components and sections brought together to make up this article. In other words, I am
going to deconstruct the article and explain how they created an article that I deemed good
research. First off, the title is simple and straight to the point. I can read the title and understand
exactly what the article is about. More often than not I will read a long winded title and be
clueless about what the article is supposed to be about. When writing a journal article, writing a
vague title is not a good way to begin.
Next when examining the structure of the article is the subheadings. As simple as the
subheading sound, they are of great importance in an informative article. I think they break up
the article into easy to read sections and help the reader understand exactly what part of the
article they are reading. We have read many articles without subheadings and have easily gotten
confused as to what part we are reading. Subheadings also help the reader in going back to the
article to find a certain statement or remark that may have been of interest. Although at
something as simple as subheadings may not be considered in defining good research, however

being organized is one of the most important steps in identifying and distributing good research.
The next step after subheadings is the distribution of information within the subheadings.
In other works, the content has to be there. A researcher can be the most organized scholar there
is, but if there is no content content to display in those subheadings, there is no research done.
Having structure is key to creating good research but I also believe good research is if the reader
is engages the reader. An author should know their audience. Rumann and Hamrick understand
that those who read theyre articles are interest in veteran education and those who are first year
doctoral students would be more interested in reading works from Susan Gardner. These authors
stick to writing and researching what they are good at and only try to please those who are
interested in their material and do not try to please the masses by trying too hard to appeal to a
mass audience. When I read an article, I want the authors to be speaking me, Noah and not Noah,
John, and Paul. Basically, even though many people read articles that they would consider good
research, each reader should feel as if the article was written just for them.
Also the final point I want to really focus on about what good research is, is bringing
something new. A new discovery that further enhances knowledge can be considered good
research. Throughout my short time of reading articles, I have read some articles that can be
considered great research and others that can be considered not so great research. When I read an
article that does not bring a new discovery or a new way of thinking to the fore front, I get
disappointed and sometimes angry because I feel like my time has been wasted reading an article
that does not teach us anything new or help guide us in a new direction. Anyone can rehash old
information and add a new trendy jargon to it but it still is not good research. Those are just a
few of the reasons why I believe the article by Rumann and Hamrick is considered good
research.

Just as important as the previous paragraphs are in understanding what good research is, I
feel that I have to explain why this article speaks to me. The article immediately caught my
attention when doing research for this paper because it is in the field of research that I would like
to become an expert in. Before discovering the plethora of articles about veterans returning to
school, I was focusing in on choosing an article from author Susan K. Gardner. At first I was
leaning towards works from Gardner because she has written quite a few pieces about first year
doctorate students and being a first year doctorate student myself, I could learn a lot from her
works. That was until I found the article from Rumann and Hamrick.
For some, Rumann and Hamricks article can be confusing because they use terminology
and certain words that only those who served or those who understand military transition would
be able to understand. Reading about the processes and methodology they use are sparking my
ideas of how I would like to conduct my research in the future. In essence they are creating the
blue print for the direction I would like to conduct my research. As I read the article I can try to
find the holes in the research and determine if my future research can be of any help. Basically I
think this article is really good research and it will help me with creating my own good research.
Even though the research did not cross any ethical boundaries, Rumann and Hamrick
were still able to create good research in respects to ethical considerations. Rumann and Hamrick
avoided any ethical controversies by asking veterans to participate in the search willingly, all
subjects were adults so as to avoid any issues with researching minors, and the researchers did
not intervene in the life of the subjects because the research was strictly conducted at the
institutions of higher learning.

This article spoke to me as if it was calling my name and I was destined to find it. I can
see myself participating in the study. By gauging the time the research was conducted, I was in
community college being traumatized by the sheer culture shock that is community college. The
article does not have any eye catching quotes or hooks and can cite in this paper but everything
in the article goes together. It flows very wells and intrigues me to inquire why they used a
qualitative research methods instead of quantitative but they also back up their research when
Rumann and Hamrick stated, We adopted an interpretive theoretical perspective in
constructionist epistemology for this study. (Rumann & Hamrick, 2010, p 436) Despite being a
novice to the field and being an independent researcher, Rumann and Hamrick gives me the
confidence and knowledge to tackle and research project and create good research from it.
These are just a few reasons why I believe Rumann and Hamricks article is considered
good research. The article fell into what my definition of what good research is while trying true
to the research and not expanding theyre area of expertise to skew the findings. If and when I
begin conducting my own research, I would like to use Rumann and Hamrick style of writing as
a guide of how to put my research and finds o display. I am still in search of trying to find my
voice but thanks to Rumann and Hamrick, I have a guide and a basic understanding of how to
create good research and drive and create knowledge for the next generation of researchers and
scholars.

References
Gardner, S. k. (2008). "What's too much and what's too little" The Process of Becoming an

Independent Researcher in Doctoral Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3),

326-350.
Rumann, C. B., & Hamrick, F. A. (2010). Student Veterans In Transition: Re-enrolling After
War Zone Deployments. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(4), 431-458.