As Paul has recently pointed out, one of the defensive statements a researcher 'under fire' will spew is something along the lines of "Well, first get out there and do some real research/field work then you ... blah blah blah".
BUT, if you did get out nad do field research, then you run into credibility questions. There has been a lot of talk recently about researcher credibility in the forum. SO, my question/scenario is this:
Lets say a regular Joe gets tired of sitting on the sidelines and wants to 'contribute' something. What preparation and training must this person go through in order to become a respected researcher? What steps must he/she take to earn respect and credibility and maintain it in you opinion.
It depends.
The myth of the amateur suggests that one person can do it all. That's just not the case.
If you're going to go out and interview witnesses, that requires a certain skill set and knowledge - people in graduate history programs are often required to take oral research methodology courses, for example, particularly if they are going to be undertaking oral history research. Lawyers receive extensive practical training in how to ask questions, and conduct examinations. Police officers receive that kind of training as well. I know, because I've done all three: full disclosure: the police officer thing was as a 5 month special constable with the RCMP when I was in law school, and even for that we got some basic training in questioning techniques - and they rarely ever let us ask any, which was quite prudent of them - accordingly, I mention it only because it gave me the opportunity to observe experienced, trained professionals up close, not because of the training I got (that I received elsewhere). So, I would be eminently qualified to conduct that kind of research, moreso than anyone I can think of doing it within "ufology" today.
The flip side is that the last science course I took was Intro Psych in college (needed one science credit as an arts student), and before that it was introductory physical science in Grade 10. No biology. No chemistry. Virtually no physics. While I'm a smart guy, and have educated myself as much as possible in the scientific method, and broad science issues that interest me, I would never even remotely consider conducting any kind of research in "the field" that involved real science. I leave that up to scientists.
The flip side of
that is the reality that the vast majority of scientists don't have the training and experience I have in conducting investigations with eyewitnesses, and they shouldn't really be trying to do it anymore than I should be analyzing soil samples.
The answer to your question, therefore, is to get people who have the training necessary to do a certain job to do
that job, and then find
someone else to do those things that they are trained in.
It's called teamwork.
