It is a waste to research materials the wrong way
[Basic points to keep in mind for research for creative work]
I started researching materials for the purpose of writing in earnest back in university for seminars and reports, even before I started writing novels.
At that time, my seminar assistant professor praised my research, but...
What I felt back then was, rather than me being amazing, wasn't the level of research of the other students just low (or rather, sloppy)?
I keep several points in mind when researching materials, but...
Perhaps this is a problem of information literacy, and beginners might not even be aware of it?
If you are already aware of it, there is no problem, but writing things and publishing them to the world without realizing it is 'too dangerous' in many ways.
In today's world, we live in a 'sensitive' society where a small 'mistake' can immediately lead to a 'flame war'...
Besides, if you are going to research materials, don't you think 'high-level, solid research' can improve the quality of your work more than 'low-level, half-baked research'?
■ The required level changes depending on the genre
Everyone, have you ever thought about 'to what level should I research materials' for writing a work?
As I wrote in a past article, the 'required level' changes depending on 'how the author wants to depict the worldview of the work', but...
Another point is that 'the closer a work is to non-fiction with low original elements, the higher the required level'.
For example, even taking just the 'history category', there are 'historical novels' based on actually occurred historical events and figures, 'period novels' that are set in a real era but have original characters and events, and even 'historical fantasy novels' that incorporate completely fantasy original settings... the level required for material research changes for each.
If there are many original elements, you can get away with it by saying 'it's a fictional story, not historical fact (real)', but that doesn't work for stories based on reality.
If you include incorrect descriptions, readers will point them out.
(So when choosing a genre to write, I think it's better to consider your own material research ability.)
...However, just because it's a 'fantasy' with many original elements doesn't mean you won't get any criticism from readers.
For example, even in the 'pseudo-medieval European style world' common on online novel posting sites, comments like 'there is no such technology in medieval Europe' can appear.
...Well, this might be better called a problem of 'lack of risk avoidance' rather than a problem of material research...
If you are not knowledgeable about medieval Europe and have no intention of researching it in the future, you should not write 'a world like medieval Europe' in your novel, and instead vaguely gloss over it from the start.
If the word 'medieval' doesn't even appear in the work, even if you get a comment saying 'there is no such XX in the medieval period', you can reply by saying 'I never wrote that it was medieval Europe in the first place'.
■ Misreading the 'reliability of information' will cause damage
The world is overflowing with "misinformation("fake)" — I believe you, as people living in the AI era, are already aware of this.
The same applies to the "information" you collect as research material.
Even if you go to the trouble of researching information, if it contains fakes, it becomes not just a "waste" but a "major blow".
(Because it ends up being the same as "writing nonsense" even though you researched and wrote the material...)
What is important in modern research is the "reliability" of the information.
It is about whether you can trust that the information is "not fake".
...Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly difficult in modern times.
There are more information providers who prioritize "impact" and "buzz" over "accuracy of information"...
And I feel there are more cases where "checking" articles becomes neglected because people don't want to fall behind the speed of information in the world.
The level may be different, but there are times when I also do a "quick" post-check of my articles and fail to catch typos or omissions...
Even though I personally think I am reading it properly when I do it "quickly," it is surprisingly hard to catch small typos and omissions...
This is a point for future reflection...
In the first place, information on the internet is a "mixture of gems and stones".
There are information providers who have proper knowledge, and there are those with low knowledge and ability.
Some people might say, "You can just research materials on the internet"...
When I write "works with a high level of research," I use paper books or e-books published by publishers (not self-published).
This is because "commercially published books" have a "reliability" that they have been released to the world after undergoing "proper checks (editor checks, proofreading, etc.)."
Internet information is "free," but "there is nothing more expensive than free"...
Buying a book means you are paying for the "reliability" that free information lacks.
Note that if you use libraries or second-hand bookstores, you can obtain information of the same quality for free or at a low cost.
...Since the author does not receive royalties, I cannot openly recommend it from the perspective of protecting publishing culture...
Furthermore, if you use "books" for your materials, you can list them as "references".
You can appeal to the world that "this is a novel written after researching proper literature," and it can also serve as "insurance" in the unlikely event that the information is wrong (it can't be helped since the original material was wrong).
■ The "source" of information is important
For those of you who only do your research on the internet... are you properly looking at "where that information is coming from"?
In information literacy, it is always said to "check the information source," but...
People with low literacy awareness might be choosing information based on "what appeared first" or "what was displayed at the top" rather than the "certainty" of the information source, right?
I think some people may not know what is wrong with this, so I will explain it just in case...
For example, even if it is information in the same genre, "information on the NASA homepage" and "information on the Monthly Mu editorial department site" are completely different stories, right?
If it's an occult novel about urban legends, the information from the "Monthly Mu editorial department" might be more useful, but if you want to use it as material for serious sci-fi, information from "NASA" or "JAXA" is more reliable, right?
And as I wrote in the item above...
There is a huge difference in "reliability" between information provided by knowledgeable experts and information provided by amateurs without knowledge through "hearsay."
In other words, for materials, not only the "information itself" but also "where that information comes from" is important.
In the item above, I wrote that "internet information < commercially published books"...
But even among those "books," there is actually a "difference" in reliability.
Among books, there are full-scale "specialized books" written by experts and researchers in that field, and light "educational books" written for general people who want to deepen their knowledge.
Even with light educational books, if the editorial department is solid, there is no problem, but...
Among the ones I have read, there were some with "loose checks" where the notation of the same person's name changed completely a few lines later...
Therefore, in my mind, the reliability of information has the following image.
The reason AI answers are marked with "?" is because I am considering the "hallucinations (lies/misunderstandings by AI)" that are said to be mixed into AI answers at a certain rate...
And because, in the first place, with AI answers, there are cases where the "information source is unknown" (although there are types of AI that clearly state the information source).
AI answers are based on "learning" information that exists in the world (especially on the internet).
At the point where you don't know "where the learned information was (whether it was from NASA, Monthly Mu, or if it was added together and divided by two), don't you think you "cannot" evaluate its reliability?
■ It is also important to know "when" the information is from
Regarding the reliability of information, there is one other thing besides the "information source" that should be emphasized.
To put it bluntly, it is "when is this information from?".
Did you know that in Japanese history textbooks, "Prince Shotoku" has now become "Prince Umayado," and the "Taika Reform" has become the "Isshi Incident"?
Even the "oldestcurrency in Japan" isupdatedevery time there is anew discovery.
The world's "common sense" and "rules" are alsoupdatedyear by year.
However, in the world of the internet and real bookshelves (especially libraries and used bookstores),new and old information exist in a jumble.
Therefore, the person doing the research must be conscious of checking, "When is this information from?"
However, information isnot necessarily better just because it is new.
For example, when you want to write a work set in a past era...
Materials compiled in the "modern" Reiwa era versus materials written "at the time" of the era you want to set your story in... which do you think gives you a better grasp of the "atmosphere of that era"?
Even if "information" and "knowledge" are passed down through the ages, the "atmosphere" of that era fades the further away you get from it.
In that sense, "when that information is from" is important.
■ Suspect all information in the world and perform "fact-checking"
In the section above, I wrote that the most reliable materials are "specialized books," but...
Actually, I don't trust those "specialized books" 100% either.
Everyone makes mistakes and has misunderstandings, and as I wrote above, common sense can be overturned as times change.
Therefore, for "works that require a high level of research," I perform the task of "reading multiple documents to cross-reference and verify facts."
(For lighter works with many original elements, I might not go that far. It depends on the genre of the work.)
I check whetherthe same informationis written in different books, and whether there are anycontradictions...that is what I investigate.
Even with online encyclopedias like "Wikipedia," I perform "fact-checking" by comparing the Japanese and English versions, or by comparing the page of the main person I want to research with the pages of their "associates."
It is not the case that "anything will do" when comparing.
Even if the "books" are different, if they are written by the "same author," the content is bound to be the same, so there is no point in comparing them.
Even if the "authors" are different, if one of the books you want to compare is listed in the "bibliography" of the other, it is highly likely that they contain the same information, so it is not very meaningful.
In the case of something like "Wikipedia," if the Japanese version is just a direct "translation" of the English version, comparing them is just a waste of time.
(Though it might be useful for checking if the translation is correct...)
When it comes to information about minor countries or eras, it can be difficult because you might not even have enough materials to compare in the first place...
...but verifying information means "interpreting materials from multiple perspectives".
Things that were "invisible" with only one source can sometimes only be brought to light by interpreting multiple sources.
That is why I actually love this "fact-checking process."
...Well, since I spend all my time doing this, that might be why my knowledge has become so niche despite being an amateur...😅