5.2 Characteristics of Research

Being able to spot the difference between development and research is one thing. Being able to state unique, defining characteristics of research is another. We will take a look at two attempts to do this and discuss how well they capture the essential features of scientific work.

In a popular book on research methods, Leedy and Ormrod [2] explain that, although research activities may differ substantially in complexity and duration, they typically have the following eight distinctive characteristics in common:

• Research originates with a question or problem.
• Research requires the clear articulation of a goal.
• Research requires a specific plan for its realization.
• Researchers usually divide the principal problem into several, more manageable subproblems. Solving these will solve the main problem.
• Research is guided by the specific problem, question, or hypothesis that it originates from.
• Researchers accept certain critical assumptions, which serve as a foundation for their analysis.
• Research requires collection and interpretation of data.
• Research is cyclical in nature. New problems are often identified during scientific study and to solve these the process must begin anew.

Most researchers probably agree that this description captures some important features of research. The question is if they are sufficiently unique to determine if a certain set of activities is research or not. If your car does not start one morning, the troubleshooting process that you go through to fix the problem is likely to be characterized by the same eight features. These features are also applied in customer surveys and product development projects. If we go to the Nobel Prize ceremony, these features are probably common to the research programs that are rewarded with the prize but, in fact, they also apply to the work of the chefs in charge of composing the menu for the Nobel banquet. These chefs begin with the problem of how to create a gastronomic experience that suits the occasion. Second, their goal must be clearly stated. Otherwise they cannot plan their work, which is the third point. Fourth, they certainly divide the problem into subtasks, such as composing the individual dishes or choosing wines to go with them. Fifth, it would be rather surprising if their work were not guided by the main problem of composing a gala dinner menu. Sixth, when composing a menu, chefs accept certain critical assumptions. For instance, they assume that certain combinations of flavors are more pleasing to the palate than others, and that certain dishes should have certain qualities and be presented in a certain order with respect to each other. Seventh, we hope that the chefs carefully choose good raw materials and that they critically taste their creations to make sure that they reach the desired result. This means also that chefs collect and interpret data to solve their tasks. Finally, composing menus is a cyclic activity, since the work with one menu is likely to spur new ideas, which may serve as inspiration for the next menu. In summary, the features of Leedy and Ormrod may characterize research but they are not unique to research, since they apply also to other activities.

Phillips and Pugh [3] make a more promising attempt to define research. They restrict themselves to three characteristics of good research. The first is that research is based on an open system of thought. This means that there are no hidden agendas to keep in mind. As a researcher, you are both entitled and expected to question anything. We can see that this sets science apart from other modes of thinking, such as politics, management, religion or marketing, where mission may take precedence over evidence. In science, the testing and criticism of other researchers’ work are ends in themselves and are important for the development of knowledge. The second characteristic is that researchers examine data critically. This could be seen as a consequence of the first point but it is so essential that Phillips and Pugh choose to list it separately. It is probably the single most important element distinguishing science from other approaches. A researcher's immediate response to provocative statements like “Women make less efficient managers” is not to agree or disagree but to ask: “What is your evidence?” Researchers constantly ask if they got the facts right, if they could get better data or interpret the results differently. Outside research, people tend to be impatient with such questions. Researchers, on the other hand, must exert themselves to obtain systematic, reliable and valid data because they aim to understand and interpret. The third and final characteristic is that researchers generalize and specify the limits on their generalizations. Valid generalizations make it possible to apply knowledge in a wide variety of appropriate situations, which is the very idea of science. Generalizations are best established through development of explanatory theory. Relating observations to theory is indeed one of the things that turns mere data collection into research [3].

The three characteristics proposed by Phillips and Pugh are useful because, together, they define unique aspects of research. There are other characteristics too, such as the ones proposed by Leedy and Ormrod, and we could add still others to the list. For example, research is a systematic search for knowledge, meaning that it is based on methodology. We could say that research is a collective process, considering the importance of the scientific community. We could also say that research is a creative process, of which more will be said later in this chapter. However important these aspects may be, they are not unique to research. But if we are involved in an activity that is based on an open system of thought, where we have to examine data critically, and if the purpose is to extract general meaning from them, we can be quite certain that it is research we are doing. Figure 5.2 shows this “trinity” of research characteristics graphically.

Figure 5.2 Three characteristics that are unique to research if they occur together.

If there is one thing that could be added to the list of Phillips and Pugh, it is this: research is a self-corrective process. It is arguably a consequence of the other criteria but it deserves to be mentioned separately. The peer review process of research papers before they are published is one expression of this effort of self-correction. We have also seen that even established theories are discarded if they turn out not to hold water. It does not matter how elegant they are or how fond we are of them. Researchers hold no sentimentality for faulty ideas. It is difficult to think of any other system of ideas that has this sort of self-review so centrally built into it. How often do we hear political ideologists, management consultants, religious leaders or marketing officials announce that central parts of their messages have been fundamentally wrong and must be revised in light of new evidence? Scientists may well make such announcements with enthusiasm, relieved that an obstacle to progress has been removed.

After this attempt to define research, let us turn to the knowledge that results from it. As Phillips and Pugh said, general knowledge is best established through development of explanatory theory. Although individual research activities may not be directly aimed at developing or testing theories, general theories are still the overall goal of science. If we are to learn how to carry out research we need to answer two central questions. What do we mean by theories, and how can we contribute to them?