Alexi Xi

RESEARCH PROCESS

How I Research

I’m still learning how to conduct careful research. My approach is transparent, evidence-based and open to challenge. I follow a repeatable process so others can understand how I work—and where my conclusions may change.

This page describes the standards I currently follow. The process will continue to develop as I gain experience, receive feedback and learn from mistakes.

A repeatable cycle

1. Ask
2. Gather
3. Challenge
4. Revise

The order is clear, but research may return to an earlier step.

STEP 1

Ask

I begin with a genuine question rather than a preferred answer. A useful research question must allow the evidence to challenge my initial view.

STEP 2

Gather

I collect primary sources, reliable secondary sources, data, observations and different perspectives.

STEP 3

Challenge

I search for alternative explanations, conflicting evidence and reasons my initial interpretation may be incomplete or wrong.

STEP 4

Revise

I record what changed, why it changed and what remains uncertain. A conclusion may be updated when better evidence becomes available.

Research Standards

These standards help me distinguish between collecting information and conducting a careful investigation.

Question Before Conclusion

I do not begin by trying to prove that a company is successful or that my personal preference is correct.

Traceable Evidence

Important factual claims should be connected to identifiable sources.

Evidence and Interpretation

I separate what a source states, what I observe and what I currently think the evidence may mean.

Alternative Explanations

I actively consider explanations that compete with my initial hypothesis.

Limits and Uncertainty

I explain what the available evidence cannot establish and where my method may be weak.

Student Ownership

I must be able to explain the question, evidence, calculations, limitations and conclusions in my own words.

How I Evaluate Sources

Different sources serve different purposes and should not automatically receive equal weight. A company statement is not automatically an objective fact.

1. Primary Sources

Company reports and official filings; official statistics; original product or company pages; my documented observations; approved and anonymised participant responses.

Normally the starting point for important factual claims, although they may still contain limitations or bias.

2. Reliable Secondary Sources

Established news organisations; academic publications; reputable industry research; independent analysis with a clear method.

These can provide context, comparison and alternative interpretations.

3. Contextual Sources

User reviews, public discussion, videos, blogs and social-media posts.

These may help identify questions or perspectives, but usually cannot support an important conclusion by themselves.

4. Unverified Claims

Unsourced screenshots; repeated claims with no original source; statistics with no visible method; anonymous rumours.

These should not be treated as reliable research evidence.

Separating Evidence from Interpretation

  • Verified Fact — Traceable to an appropriate source.
  • Company Statement — A claim or interpretation made by the company.
  • Participant Response — An anonymised approved response.
  • Alexi’s Observation — Something I personally recorded.
  • Alexi’s Interpretation — My current explanation.
  • Unresolved Question — Not yet answered by the evidence.

A participant’s answer or a single observation does not automatically represent all customers or prove a general conclusion.

How I Challenge My Initial View

Because I may already like a product or company, I could notice supporting evidence more easily than conflicting evidence.

  • What evidence would weaken my explanation?
  • Is there another reasonable explanation?
  • Have I included people who disagree?
  • Am I confusing correlation with causation?
  • Are my classmates representative of all consumers?
  • Am I relying too heavily on company language?
  • Have I ignored inconvenient evidence?
  • What result would require a change?

Applying this to AXR-001

Because I personally like Pop Mart, I may be more likely to notice evidence that supports the brand. I therefore need to consider non-buyers, former buyers and explanations that challenge my initial view.

This is an example of possible bias, not a completed research finding.

Collecting Original Evidence

  • Anonymous student interviews
  • Small exploratory questionnaires
  • Product or website observations
  • Price and availability tracking
  • Comparison across products, characters or markets
  • Follow-up conversations at a later date
  • Alexi-created datasets and calculations

Small student interviews are exploratory. They do not represent all teenagers, all Pop Mart customers or the wider consumer market.

Privacy and Participant Protection

  • Participation must be voluntary.
  • Participants may decline or withdraw.
  • Do not publish real names without explicit permission.
  • Do not publish accounts, usernames or contact details.
  • Collect only necessary information.
  • Do not publish identifying class details.
  • Protect private spending information.
  • Store raw responses privately.
  • Use labels such as Participant A.
  • Follow school and guardian requirements.

Public example:
Participant A
Student interview · Month Year

AI and External Assistance

AI and external feedback may assist parts of the process, but they must not be presented as my independent work when they materially shaped the result.

May assist: grammar, website coding, formatting, draft questions, debugging and chart-format exploration.

Must not be presented as: conducting interviews, creating responses or evidence, reading sources I did not examine, determining conclusions or replacing my understanding.

I disclose material AI or external assistance on each published Research or Note entry. The description should reflect how assistance was actually used.

Revision and Corrections

Revision: New evidence, feedback or clearer reasoning changes my interpretation.

Correction: A factual statement, quotation, source, calculation or label was wrong.

  • Preserve first-published and last-revised dates.
  • Explain material changes.
  • Record factual corrections visibly.
  • Do not silently remove significant errors.
  • Keep uncertainty visible.
  • Do not rewrite history to appear consistently correct.

Before I Publish

A project is not treated as Published Research simply because a draft exists or because the webpage is complete.

  • The research question is clearly defined.
  • Important factual claims have traceable sources.
  • Evidence is separated from interpretation.
  • Relevant calculations can be checked.
  • Alternative explanations are considered.
  • Limitations and uncertainty are stated.
  • Participant privacy is protected.
  • AI and external assistance are disclosed accurately.
  • I can explain the work in my own words.
  • A system exists for revisions and corrections.

Work that has not reached this standard should remain labelled In Progress or Working Note.

Applying the Process to AXR-001

Project: AXR-001 · Pop Mart

Working question: Why do my classmates and I like Pop Mart—and what makes that interest last or fade?

Status: In Progress

Current stage: Early research

Main uncertainty: Whether lasting interest is driven mainly by character attachment, scarcity, shared social experience or other factors.

Next step: Refining the research subquestions and developing the evidence plan.

View Research →   ·   View Research Notes →