In research, we must consider our own and others’ biases.
The illusion of explanatory depth, described in the video below, can negatively impact the precision and plausibility of our hypotheses.
It can also help explain participant behaviors.
In qualitative research, we can unintentionally disrupt this illusion in our informants – prompting them to give a less automatic, less “natural” answer to our questions.
Every research project starts with a research question:
- Observational: I believe that the world works in a certain way. I want to give evidence in favor of (or against) my observation.
- Theoretical: This theory predicts that the world will work in this way but it hasn’t yet been tested in this particular context. Let’s do it!
- Inferential: If the world works in one way, it probably works in a logically related way as well. Let’s see!
- Incremental: The world has been shown to work in this way by numerous studies – let’s confirm the results of these studies and see if we can flesh out the story a bit.
- Exploratory: Let’s see how the world works.
- Practical: Can we get the world to work this way?
Let’s take an example. One of my specialties is the study of stereotyping and prejudice. When I hear people talking about stereotyping-related topics in the media and amongst themselves, I often find myself thinking, “Wow! You’re so busy being half right that you’re having this discussion all wrong!” That thought may be pretentious – but let’s go with it. Further, let’s pretend that I have a practical goal – to get a variety of audiences to embrace what I consider to be cutting-edge thinking and practice with regards to racial stereotypes.
So, I have a practical question which I am answering from an interdisciplinary perspective – is it true that I can get an audience to embrace this cutting-edge thinking?
Before we leap into speculating about potential measures of success or failure and potential tools for reaching our goals, let’s take a step back and consider relevant variables.