Adventures in research land: another glance "through the looking glass" to see what constitutes research

There are many frames and rules of thumb for determining what constitutes 'research'. Some views are directed by the perspective or philosophical underpinnings of particular disciplines or approaches to research. Others are guided by rules concerning or definitions of what 'evidence' is, or whether 'new' knowledge is created. A recent paper by Jarvis suggests that we should differentiate among research, evaluation and measures to assure quality, and that this may help us steer a course through the roles and reasons for these various and varying activities. While the desire to clarify some distinct territory for what constitutes research versus something else is understandable, we argue that these distinctions in the end are at best unhelpful, can be misleading and actually do more harm than good--which in itself is an outcome that good research should avoid. This brief report is not a critique of the specific nomenclature suggested by Jarvis or other existing frames for identifying 'research'. Our intent is rather to begin a more general commentary on the very subject raised near the end of Jarvis's paper: "The three primary approaches to reviewing what we do are research, evaluation and quality assurance. There are similarities, differences and overlaps among these three approaches. They are part of a continuum with no clear distinctions between them."