Research Should Be A Tool For Thinking Clearly

Research Should Be A Tool For Thinking Clearly

By Jeffrey M. Bowen

Students are typically told that research should come before drawing conclusions.  However, life experience prompts us to jump to conclusions, and then backfill selectively to justify them.    

What is wrong about this?  It seems quite natural to look harder for justifications than for contradictions.  But there are pitfalls lying in the weeds.  Most obvious are suspicions about so-called fake news.  As a result, we may close our minds to opposing viewpoints spawned by the internet or the media.  When conclusions rely on bias and emotions, the truth acts like a candle in the wind.   

Having spent a lifetime conducting research for many different purposes, I have a few suggestions regarding ways to make it a better tool for thinking clearly.

First, carefully define potential misconceptions, and then ask why.  For instance, if I eat a lot of peanut butter, does this make me more intelligent?  Or do I eat more of it because I am more intelligent?  Cause and effect is a two-way street, so it always makes sense to balance correlational research with common sense.  Along with this we should rule out questionable causes – like whether chunky or smooth peanut butter makes a difference – and realize that relationships are not necessarily a matter of cause and effect.  Things may just vary together by coincidence.

Another fallibility is called herd instinct.  Unless we analyze an issue to form our own opinions, we may be tempted to “go with the flow” and embrace what others tell us is a popular choice.  Herds could be a matter of survival, as when a crowd gallops toward an exit because of fire.  Or it might occur simply because an overhead sprinkler has malfunctioned.  

Rolf Dobelli, head of a decision science lab at Harvard, describes a fascinating collection of misconceptions that can best be corrected by self-awareness and a bit of research.  He points out that we jump to conclusions using whatever information is handy (availability bias).  We hold onto a house that has become a money pit when logic and research tell us it is time to sell (sunk cost fallacy).  Another potential warp, called “story bias”, leads us to turn truths into fairy tales for purposes of consistency or to hide something.  After all, stories are usually more interesting and exciting than time-consuming research.

Often we invent reasons to short circuit research.  Most popular is the knowing-doing gap.  By investigating an issue into near oblivion, we can delay doing anything about it.  Instead, research might reasonably convince us to act and then make adjustments afterward.       

Research and the internet go together.  For this reason, digital literacy should be a necessity for all of us.  Reading habits have changed drastically in recent years, especially for young people.   A new study reports that just 16 percent of our high school seniors read a book, magazine, or newspaper every day.  In contrast, eight of every 10 spend vast periods of time staring at computer screens.   A helpful step toward research literacy could be Google Scholar.  Via this computer application students can be guided to ask well-worded questions, investigate real-world problems, share their work, and to compare and refine documented references.

Simply collecting information is hardly enough.  Thinking should be clarified beforehand.  Misconceptions should be anticipated.  The internet may be a worldwide data treasure, but mining it calls for integrity and a systematic approach.  Valid and reliable research takes time, effort, and open-mindedness.  It can be used to test hypotheses, for advocacy or to tell a story, but in every instance, research should be respected as a feature of daily life.