I have done original research before, actually in an Anthropology 101 class we have been asked to do ethnographic research on a population of students at SCSU, through participation observation and survey questions our group gave to a few select individuals on campus.
What makes original research different from library research through what I have come to gather myself in my own experience is that when original research is conducted you yourself are finding the information and gathering it; you have to physically go out with the intention of trying to explain or find some aspect of a question you what to learn more about or want answered. While when you conduct library research someone else has already gathered the information for you and you are basing your knowledge of what they have reported on the source through what you have read in the book. So the knowledge is recycled and is not new in a way. It is not as fresh as when one does original research.
There are two ways in which I can think of library research being a guide or support to original research. The first is that one will use library research as a starting reference point for what it is that is trying to be found through the original research. It is a good thing to check and see if anyone else has had the same question you may be faced with while doing original research, and if they have in most cases your question or what you wish to find may not be the same as what they posed, but is similar in some aspects none the less. So it is a good source to reference to credit your findings and show that your topic (if it applies) has been researched before you yourself did so. Library research can also give you ideas as to what exactly you want to look for in your original research, and ways in which you can go about doing so. The second way is that you find two sources of research you believe are relevant to your topic but show differing findings. With these you can support original research off these two pieces though referencing the findings of the pieces and saying that they support your own original research question (such as if the findings are compared it can be seen that (original research question) can be gathered through this information.) Its like manipulating the data in your favor (through explaining why it can be seen through the combination of this information that your original research question can be answered) of whatever you are trying to find.
I think the pros of library research are the it is able to offer you numerous sources of information on your topic depending on what you are researching, which is a very convenient thing when you need sources in which to accredit what you are researching. It is also a source where in the most part you know where to find what you are looking for because the information is cataloged and arranged which makes finding things you need very easy. The cons of Library research though are that if there is a lot of information on your subject of research it can be difficult to find material that you need because it may take a while to find it if you have to search through many books or articles just to find it. Another thing is that it is very possible that even if you find a source of information it may not be exactly the same as what it is you are trying to research which means you must continue to look for more information on the topic. Or it is possible that there may not even be any material located in the library that references your specific topic.
While with original research's pros on the other hand, because it can either be information you have gathered yourself or a collective of information you have found in books in the library it makes it much more versatile in how you are able to conduct/find information compared to that of library research. Also with original research if you conduct it yourself you do not have to worry about searching for a book on the topic (and your possibly unique research question), you can just go out yourself and observe peoples from this population (I would say if you thought you would be safe while doing so) and you can gather your own information and form your own findings through it. The cons though I would have to say are that if one wants to directly observe a population which may not be the safest group in which to do so it could be hard to conduct your own research safely. Or you may even possibly have some difficulty finding members of your population (such as drug users because they usually to do openly campaign their usage, and nor would they most likely want to tell you about it or answer questions you pose to them on the subject) So in original research can be much harder to locate and find sources sometimes as compared to that of library research. I would also say that for original research if it is not done on a fare amount of individuals it is possible that the findings could be questionable say if your making a statement on the population as a whole in your research, since it may not be the case if you have only been able to observe a few individuals from that population. (So it is not a good representation of the group as a whole because it could be asked if these individuals where different from the rest of the population if you only conducted research in a small area of the population)
I think critical thinking skills which can be seen in both areas of research are rationality, self-awareness, open-mindedness and judgement. Rationality because you need to think rationally while doing research since in both cases you are trying acquire evidence and not leave out any information in the process. Self-awareness because you need to acknowledge if you have any predetermined bias on the subject so that it does not effect the direction or findings of what you are searching on. Open-minded because you need to make yourself open to all the the possibly of what you may find even if you may not agree with it or thought it would something different than it turned out to be. And judgement because it is important to weigh the validity to the information you have gathered or that you are looking at so that you can determine if it is a good source in which to use.
For library research I think the most important critical thinking skill is probably judgement because if one does not use judgement on the book that is being looked through by checking if the research is validated and proven or through doing research on the author and determining they are a reliable source. Using good judgement will help you find the most relevant results on your subject in library research and that is why I think that skill is the most important in library research.
I think the most important critical thinking skill in original research is open-mindedness because if you do original research you may be going out and looking for a specific thing you believed to be true, and it is quite possible that what you where looking for may not be there, so you have to be willing to record your findings without trying to interpret them in a way that is in favor of what you started out looking for which would not be an accurate representation for your research. You have to accepted and be open minded about what you find and try to put yourself in the situation of those you are observing so that you can better understand them and thus be better able to explain in a more efficient manor what your findings where on the subject.
There are two ways in which I can think of library research being a guide or support to original research. The first is that one will use library research as a starting reference point for what it is that is trying to be found through the original research. It is a good thing to check and see if anyone else has had the same question you may be faced with while doing original research, and if they have in most cases your question or what you wish to find may not be the same as what they posed, but is similar in some aspects none the less. So it is a good source to reference to credit your findings and show that your topic (if it applies) has been researched before you yourself did so. Library research can also give you ideas as to what exactly you want to look for in your original research, and ways in which you can go about doing so. The second way is that you find two sources of research you believe are relevant to your topic but show differing findings. With these you can support original research off these two pieces though referencing the findings of the pieces and saying that they support your own original research question (such as if the findings are compared it can be seen that (original research question) can be gathered through this information.) Its like manipulating the data in your favor (through explaining why it can be seen through the combination of this information that your original research question can be answered) of whatever you are trying to find.
I think the pros of library research are the it is able to offer you numerous sources of information on your topic depending on what you are researching, which is a very convenient thing when you need sources in which to accredit what you are researching. It is also a source where in the most part you know where to find what you are looking for because the information is cataloged and arranged which makes finding things you need very easy. The cons of Library research though are that if there is a lot of information on your subject of research it can be difficult to find material that you need because it may take a while to find it if you have to search through many books or articles just to find it. Another thing is that it is very possible that even if you find a source of information it may not be exactly the same as what it is you are trying to research which means you must continue to look for more information on the topic. Or it is possible that there may not even be any material located in the library that references your specific topic.
While with original research's pros on the other hand, because it can either be information you have gathered yourself or a collective of information you have found in books in the library it makes it much more versatile in how you are able to conduct/find information compared to that of library research. Also with original research if you conduct it yourself you do not have to worry about searching for a book on the topic (and your possibly unique research question), you can just go out yourself and observe peoples from this population (I would say if you thought you would be safe while doing so) and you can gather your own information and form your own findings through it. The cons though I would have to say are that if one wants to directly observe a population which may not be the safest group in which to do so it could be hard to conduct your own research safely. Or you may even possibly have some difficulty finding members of your population (such as drug users because they usually to do openly campaign their usage, and nor would they most likely want to tell you about it or answer questions you pose to them on the subject) So in original research can be much harder to locate and find sources sometimes as compared to that of library research. I would also say that for original research if it is not done on a fare amount of individuals it is possible that the findings could be questionable say if your making a statement on the population as a whole in your research, since it may not be the case if you have only been able to observe a few individuals from that population. (So it is not a good representation of the group as a whole because it could be asked if these individuals where different from the rest of the population if you only conducted research in a small area of the population)
I think critical thinking skills which can be seen in both areas of research are rationality, self-awareness, open-mindedness and judgement. Rationality because you need to think rationally while doing research since in both cases you are trying acquire evidence and not leave out any information in the process. Self-awareness because you need to acknowledge if you have any predetermined bias on the subject so that it does not effect the direction or findings of what you are searching on. Open-minded because you need to make yourself open to all the the possibly of what you may find even if you may not agree with it or thought it would something different than it turned out to be. And judgement because it is important to weigh the validity to the information you have gathered or that you are looking at so that you can determine if it is a good source in which to use.
For library research I think the most important critical thinking skill is probably judgement because if one does not use judgement on the book that is being looked through by checking if the research is validated and proven or through doing research on the author and determining they are a reliable source. Using good judgement will help you find the most relevant results on your subject in library research and that is why I think that skill is the most important in library research.
I think the most important critical thinking skill in original research is open-mindedness because if you do original research you may be going out and looking for a specific thing you believed to be true, and it is quite possible that what you where looking for may not be there, so you have to be willing to record your findings without trying to interpret them in a way that is in favor of what you started out looking for which would not be an accurate representation for your research. You have to accepted and be open minded about what you find and try to put yourself in the situation of those you are observing so that you can better understand them and thus be better able to explain in a more efficient manor what your findings where on the subject.
