facts and arguments attributed to one party by citing another who reiterates them. The weaknesses of secondary refer- encing are obvious. The student is relying on the source at hand presenting an accurate picture of the earlier claims and where this is not the case, any errors made are repeated by the learner. In addition, the wider context in which the original author set down their thoughts is lost. Secondary referencing gives an impression of laziness, too; the reader of the student’s document may well feel that the individual has lacked both the determination necessary to track down the actual source and the sense of responsibility that would have led to them offering sufficient bibliographical data for the reader to find the item themselves.8


The practice of secondary referencing is not wildly differ- ent from accepting without scrutiny the material presented by an AI agent – in each instance the student is trusting the second-order material given to them without going to the first sources, and similar problems arise in both cases. In particular, the individual will be oblivious to the point at which any errors have been made. They could be the fault of the original author or that of the later user – either the writer whose work they are seeing or the AI agent they are exploiting.


We may be comfortable in everyday life when referring in casual conversation to the work of household names such as Abraham Maslow, Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin without reading for ourselves Motivation and Personality, Relativity or The Origin of Species, yet we know that if we are conducting serious study, our understanding of their ideas must come from a first-hand reading of their books, not a second-order summary. Again, similar arguments apply in the case of AI outputs.


If we return to the summary of “zetetic enquiry” given in the Wikipedia entry, i.e. it is a philosophy that knowledge should be gained from personal experience,3


this may lead


us to take a firm stance on student research that includes insights from both the existing literature and original investigation. It has long been recommended – or simply assumed – in many of the standard research methods textbooks that discoveries emerging from published sources will be sought first and reported in such a way as to set the scene for what will be learnt later from the newly gathered data.9


In many instances where Sixth Formers are study- ing for the Extended Project Qualification, early reading is instrumental in inspiring the candidate’s research question and more detailed reading just becomes an intensification of the ongoing information-finding process. Certainly, pro- longed early reading helps the student to appreciate the size of the research area they are considering, its boundaries and the extent to which relevant and high quality informa- tion is available on the subject. Yet, there are other perspectives. Glaser, for example, argues that preconceived concepts – which may have emerged from reading – can “contaminate” any efforts made by the researcher to construct meaning from their data.10


This links with one of the foremost characteristics


of the zetetic approach, i.e. that the individual keeps an open mind11


, and does not close down their thinking at an early stage. In addition, I have argued elsewhere that when young children are undertaking research, it is wise to start with first-hand investigation – the products of which are immediate to them – before they go to published sources for supporting insights.12


No doubt for many teachers and


school librarians, practitioner research is likely to begin with them recognising an issue that is worthy of examin- ing in their own learning environment. The research that immediately follows may amount to “little more than a formal and structured adaptation of the kind of appraisal of a classroom activity or assessment of students’ performance


August-September 2026 INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 43


that is routinely undertaken.”13 consulted.


Only later is published literature


We may conclude, then, that the pursuit of zetetic principles can operate at two levels in student research. Firstly, in situations where the individual collects their own data and draws on the literature, the two processes may take place in that order, somewhat contrary to the conventional wisdom, with the learners’ own discoveries forming the most significant element. Secondly, in research where understanding is gained from published sources and second-order analysis like that offered by AI tools, it is important that the student goes to the origi- nal items, rather than simply relying on a summary or distillation of what was apparently said. IP


References 1. Shenton, A.K. A little wisdom from ancient times. Information Professional, February/March 2026, pp. 36-37.


2. The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Ed. J. Pearsall. Oxford University Press, 1998.


3. Samuel Shenton. Wikipedia, 20 January 2026. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samu- el_Shenton


4. Lewandowsky, S., Mann, M.E., Brown, N.J.L. and Friedman, H. Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4 (2), 2016, pp. 537-53.


5. Dunne, G. Rethinking “thinking skills” in 21st-century education: Combining conceptual clarity with a novel 4E cognitive framework. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 44 (5), 2025, pp. 493-511.


6. Thorstad, D. Inquiry Under Bounds. Oxford University Press, 2024.


7. Schliemann, O. Inquiry-based learning in philosophy. In Mieg, H.A. (ed) Inquiry-Based Learning – Undergraduate Research: The German Multidisciplinary Experience. Springer, 2019, pp. 311-20.


8. Shenton, A.K. Facilitating Effective Sixth Form Independent Learning: Methodologies, Methods and Tools. Facet, 2021.


9. See, for example: Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. Surviving Your Dissertation: A Compre- hensive Guide to Content and Process, 3rd ed. Sage, 2007.


10. Glaser, B.G. Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press, 1978. 11. Falbo, A. The zetetic. 2025. URL: https://philarchive.org/archive/FALTZY


12. Shenton, A.K. Children as researchers: Where should they start? Primary First, 14, 2015, pp. 30-34.


13. Shenton, A.K. Classroom research: A more natural model for teachers. SecEd, 24 June 2024. URL: https://www.sec-ed.co.uk/content/best-practice/classroom-research-a-more-natural-model- for-teachers


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56