Data bases

[Stuart Robinson]

That databases are databases and journal articles are journal articles of
course goes without saying. That's because it's a tautology. We all know
that there is a big difference in the current academic environment between
databases and journal articles. The question is whether there should be,
and why. The issue Martin's original posting raised identified specific
issues that need to be addressed for the "publication" of typological
databases. If you don't think databases and archives should be developed
and/or promoted, that's fine.  I'd like to hear why. But make an argument,
don't just assert that databases aren't research. More specifically, I'd
like to hear your explanation of why you think data themselves aren't
research even though they require thoughtful preparation? And why is "the
clear and sharp distinction between research and materials" essential?

-Stuart

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Gideon Goldenberg wrote:

> That databases are databases, and journal articles are journal
> articles goes without saying. The clear and sharp distinction
> between research and materials is essential. The latter will be
> needed to illustrate scholarly discussion, but data themselves
> are not research even though they require thoughtful preparation.
> When electronic means became available there was the hope that
> from then on the mere accumulation of data would no longer be
> able to give credit of scientific work; it unfortunately turns
> to go the other way about.
> To share databases with others is OK and can be beneficial,
> but do not mistake it for research.