Interdisciplinary Analysis: Research: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Research requires a tremendous amount of time and support. We students can especially relate as we spend countless hours searching for data, receiving advice from colleagues, and, in certain situations, use aid from another party to conduct our research to formulate our papers. Professionals in the workforce are no exceptions because they depend on primary information that may be acquired through surveys and studies managed by themselves or representatives. However, in order to support these endeavors, professional researchers often request the support and resources from government groups and programs. Although, in the absence of governmental funds, researchers can look towards secondary sponsors that will support the study. In fact, the American Heart Association recently partnered with Google in November of this year in the pursuit of a new project. This collaboration was made to advance the efforts in researching the causes of heart disease and potential cures. Whatever the case may be, intensive research in professional fields may call for the enterprising contributions from sponsors supporting the venture. With the restrictions of research established, one must consider that every career carry their own strengths and weaknesses in their methods of research under limitations posed during their investigation. In order to comprehend the distinctions in perspective of separate trades, it is necessary to explore disciplines with no relation to each other and how they tackle a problem. The article, “NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease”, from the journal, PLOS ONE, presents a neurologist’s scientific approach on researching data through the utilization of hypothesis to underline an issue, records and data from the previous years, and analysis from that data to create a solid conclusion. From the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, an article called “The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries” brings an architect’s calculated approach on the conduct in their studies with the use of strategy on how information is to be explored, experimentation with available resources, and ingenuity to reach a verdict on an issue. Although both disciplines have fundamental backgrounds in science, they both differ greatly from one another in their fields and methods which enables each to provide their own viewpoints on the freedoms and constraints of research.

Before analyzing how both disciplines deal with an issue, we must grasp the purpose of each career and how their perspectives proceed with the management of and search for relevant information. Neurologists are medical doctors trained in diagnosing, treating, and managing disorders of the brain and nervous system. Although this specialist does not perform treatment such as surgery, they primarily consult with other physicians and recommend proper medical care as well as monitor surgically treated patients and supervise the continuation of their treatment. Under normal circumstance, neurologists studies the health history of the patient and their relatives to note special consideration on the patient. Then the doctor will conduct sensory tests to determine problems in the nervous system to confirm a diagnosis. On the other hand, architects deal with designing new buildings, extensions, or alterations and advise on the restoration and maintenance of older structures. Professionals in this field produce the specifications of a construct to ensure the functional, safe, and economic standards from the flexibility of freelance operatives to the employment of organizations. In addition to these skills, architects can create models for a building, communicate their visual ideas to their clients, and financially manage the project. Both careers demand rigorous education however as opposed to neurologists who clinically solve their objectives, architects tend to have freedom and creativity in the workforce. The article regarding the point of view from a neurologist’s standpoint, presents information on disease burden and data of how much funding supports those disease burdens. The latter’s article brings data on urban policy, the relevancy of keywords with the growth of developing countries, and research and documents with the results of the investigation.

While these two disciplines require educational backgrounds in science, the difference between the articles is the backgrounds and professions of the authors. Before indicating the strengths and weaknesses of the two careers, one must examine the disciplinary differences between them and how the nature of their profession is connected to how they gather intelligence. Neurology is a field that focuses on medical and social sciences. The scientific approach utilized by neurologists involves deducting a hypothesis concerning an issue, discovering research that can prove that theory, and cross-reference that data with that of recent years in order to affirm whether the initial hypothesis is correct or that it lead to another trend. This mirrors how a doctor will perform a series of tests to diagnose a patient of an illness or not. On the contrary, Architecture relies on physical sciences and mathematics. Proficiency in these skills allow architects to formulate a calculated approach and strategize on exploring information, conduct experiments from those results while applying creativity and cleverness to the matter. Much like the former, this procedure reflects how architects design structures with consideration in what order the construct must be built without sacrificing innovation. Due to the distinction in the manner of how both fields approach research, they also reflect their knowledge in their respective disciplines and viewpoints of their trades. By analyzing the prospects and purposes of these two vocations and how they can apply the unique qualities of their trade to a task, we can delve further into the strengths and weaknesses that arise in correlation of these behaviors with their own methods in research .

Concerning the author and researchers in the field of neurology, these specialists gravitate toward a scientific approach to ensure efficient and logical research. The leading author of “NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease”, Leslie A. Gillum, wrote the article based on the issue of the allocation of funds for specific diseases and the NIH’s (National Institute of Health) funding alignment with disease burden. In the mid-1990s Congress requested the IOM (Institute of Medicine) to evaluate the NIH’s processes for funding apportionment. Upon the discovery of this record, the authors’ of this piece decide to further investigate this issue in order to cultivate the impact of the future disease burden. The researchers in this article hypothesize that the NIH has developed their process to align funds with burden in correlation of the funds, disease burden, and records reported from ten years ago. They also put into consideration of potential predictors of funding and estimates for future and global disease burden. By devising a theory based on previous studies, the authors of the article can explore the potential or the repercussions of the issue in recent years. From this diagnosis of the matter, these researchers proceed to recover information on the subject. Paying attention to the records from the mid-1990s, they establish the method used from that time to model and substantiate their own research and analysis. The study from the 1990s utilized burden data from 1994 and NIH funding data from 1996 to mirror the data on disease burden. Similarly, the neurologists drew the same points from 2004 and 2006 respectively. From the information from 2004 and 2006, the researchers condense the statistics on a table and display the name of a disease with the figures such as the amount of funding it received, incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability adjusted life-years. Once all of the evidence for the case is gathered and studied by the multiple authors of this article, the researchers can then compare the data they have collected with that from the 1990s and determine whether their hypothesis is correct or not. When the comparison between the two studies was finalized, the neurologists concluded that funding levels of recent years were less aligned than that ten years ago from 2004 and 2006. In light of this realization, the researchers have noted that their hypothesis was false and offer potential solutions that can improve the current statute of fund alignment. The scientific approach brought by neurologists provides an effective method for researching information and consolidating the results from their studies; however, through this conclusion, researchers wielding this approach face the possibility that their theory is incorrect in the presence of compelling or misleading information.

Following the revelations from the analysis of a neurologist’s practice in research, we will now probe into the perspective of an architect. These individuals invoke a calculated approach to capture credible information from their research. The prime author of “The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries”, Richard Tomlinson, composed his article to enlighten several positions on urban policy, the availability of information on the issue, policy hegemony, and public-private partnerships (PPPs). In order to support those claims, the writers of this piece formulate a strategy to tackling what those positions are and how they influence urban policy and knowledge of the matter. The first claim was to research how the World Bank, UN Habitat, and Cities Alliance dominate urban agenda in regards to urban issues and appropriate policies. The second was to investigate the contribution to the hegemony on these issues and policies with policy perspectives through the use of the search engine, Google. And lastly, the authors research how institutes, such as the ones mentioned in the first claim, “own” certain keywords on search engines to draw users to their own resources and documents. By outlining these three components of their claim, Tomlinson and his team have pinpointed the areas where they need to apply focused research increase the efficiency of their investigation. Following the search of relevant information on those claims, the writers of the article can conduct their own experiments to sustain insufficient data or previously found data. The article googled keywords and labels to generate results on policy alternatives to PPPs and other institutes. Much like the former discipline, the architects of this piece compiled the information from this pursuit onto a table that presented an institute’s relation to webpage. In doing so, the article’s displays provide an explanation of how institutions have a presence in policy issues and “own” general terms that can link results to their own resource. Compared to how neurologists gathered their statistics, the architects of this article employed the creativity of their trade to fabricate data in the absence of information on their issue. With the knowledge from their study illuminated, the authors can then conclude and confirm that the information provided by an institute holds relevancy through certain keywords and is delivered by Google to their users. To validate this conclusion, the authors forwarded their proposal to Google’s Search Quality team. However, the proposition was passed along to several other teams and the writers of the article had yet to receive any response. The calculated approach provided by an architect’s point of view allowed for effective research in collaboration with ingenuity granted from their profession; But with possibility of holes in that information, inconsistency is created in the presence of minor errors in the research or questioning of sources.

Due to the fact that Research is necessary for the improvement of any given field, it is important to consider the backgrounds of said field. While neurology and architecture have some similarities in the science and the pathways of how they solve an issue, they apply the unique characteristics of their trade in their studies. Although by doing so grants a distinctive perspective and reinforcement to their research and conclusion, they can both suffer from the same anomaly in the investigation. While preferring different methods to begin and continue their research, both disciplines reach the possibility of doubt in their claims. Aside from the major difference in career, the primary difference between these two profession in how they approach an issue and research is the different mannerisms they exhibit while conducting their research. Both Neurologists and Architects apply their customs into research to reflect how they would perform a diagnosis or strategize the construction of a building.









Citation

Tomlinson, Richard et al. “The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34.1 (2010): 174–189. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Gillum LA, Gouveia C, Dorsey ER, Pletcher M, Mathers CD, et al. (2011) “NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease.” PLoS ONE Web. 19 Nov. 2015

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/google-aims-a-50-million-moonshot-at-curing-heart-disease/

http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7221/S2-7221

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-todays-young-architects-are-building-the-future-1439935910

https://www.lifenph.com/article-neuros.asp

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-engineering-careers/engineering/architect#education