No Perfect Research
“Doing qualitative research is by nature a reflective and recursive process.” (Ely, 1991).
Among the Muslim carpet makers of the Middle East there is an ancient aphorism that says, “Only Allah can make a perfect carpet.” They therefore intentionally, according to legend, always make a slight, usually undetectable error when creating their magnificent and complex carpets.
All researchers, no matter what their age, race, gender, religion, education or national origin share several things in common. One is tautological, i.e. they are, by definition researching. Another common characteristic is that they are all human, despite the impressive progress in machine intelligence. Being human, of course, means they share a lack of perfection. They have experiences, tastes, prejudices that predispose them to make decisions and choices that are sometimes less than completely objective.
As Lewis Thomas wrote in his The Lives of a Cell (1974): “The essential wildness of science as a manifestation of human behaviour is not generally perceived…The difficulties are more conspicuous when the problems are very hard and complicated and the facts not yet in…”(p. 117).
While modern researchers are not usually intentionally disingenuous they are subject to the limits of their abilities as well as those of their research assistants and even, in this computerized age, the limits of their mechanical, digital helpers. Research has become both easier and more difficult as a result, both directly and indirectly, of our increased dependence on computer so-called intelligence. In the pre-internet days scholars and researchers scoured libraries and universities in search of relevant and reliable source material.
Nowadays they peer expectantly into their desktops, laptops, notebooks, phablets and smartphones hoping for useful and accurate information. However, as anyone who has spent any time on the internet knows it has become the great library of unpublished, and sometimes unpublishable, manuscripts, with all that that implies.
How reliable is the latest information they glean from the World Wide Web? It is exceedingly and increasingly difficult to determine. Few, if any one in their right mind, would suggest that the current state of academic and scientific research is perfect. The potential flaws are varied and numerous, to say the least.
Most researchers these days seem to be exceedingly busy. Their lives are filled with the same pressures many people must deal with: balancing jobs, families, friends, hobbies and passions. Despite all the undeniably impressive advances in computer-assisted research human scholars have to sometimes make difficult decisions and choices.
Much important academic study is now done by groups, often geographically distant from one another. They must therefore rely on the sometimes unreliable infrastructure to exchange ideas and communicate with their colleagues. Many tend to trust, by necessity, their increasingly sophisticated digital assistants. Can they depend on these complex conglomerations of wires and chips, these brains of plastic and metal?
Can they afford the time in their ultra-hectic schedules to double and triple check all the results of their massive, complex efforts? While computer ability and capacity is growing exponentially, human life remains, for the foreseeable future, finite. Despite our omnipresent CCTV, GPS and innumerable other techno-marvels humans can’t be everywhere and have limited time to wrestle with the ever-increasing pressures of modern academic life.
Is some research intentionally misrepresented or inaccurate? This is occasionally, apparently the case, however rare. Is it sometimes inaccurate without intention? This also seems to be the case. Although motives may be generally honorable, modern reality sometimes raises difficulties from many directions. The pervasive “publish or perish” mentality creates extreme pressure from funding universities, corporations and governments that place today’s researchers in precarious and unenviable predicaments.
One infamous example of questionable methodology relates to the discovery that AIDS is viral in origin. “…there has been considerable and sometimes acrimonious controversy over the priority for the discovery of HIV, including accusations (which were later dropped) that Gallo’s lab misappropriated a sample of HIV produced at the Institut Pasteur.” (Scribd.com, 2009).
“Between 1983 and 1984, French scientists of the Pasteur Institute and U.S. scientists independently reported discovery of a viral cause for AIDS. Over the next five years, charges surfaced that the lead U.S. scientist, Robert Gallo, may have misappropriated the virus from the French laboratory. Based on those charges, Congressman John Dingell initiated an investigation of the allegations. Gallo and a senior colleague (Popovic) were initially found guilty of “minor misconduct”. Subsequent reports suggested that recordkeeping in the Gallo laboratory was poor. By 1991, a preliminary report from the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) noted evidence of misconduct by Gallo, but a final report essentially held him responsible only for inadequate oversight of work done under his leadership” (ibid).
Another example of questionable or flawed research from the physical sciences has to do with the alleged discovery of Element 118, so-called Ununoctium. Supposedly in 1999 “three atoms of element 118 (ununoctium, Uuo) were synthesized by fusing krypton-86 (8636Kr) with lead-208 (20882Pb).” (American Chemical Society. 2010).
“Revisiting one of physics’ most embarrassing cases of scientific misconduct, researchers from Russia and the United States announced 16 October 2006 that they have created a new super-heavy element, atomic number 118. Scientists said they smashed together calcium with the manmade element Californium to make an atom with 118 protons in its nucleus. The new element lasted for just one millisecond, but it was the heaviest element ever made and the first manmade inert gas — the atomic family that includes helium, neon and radon. In 1999, scientists said they created element 118, only to withdraw their claims in 2002 amid charges of falsified data and the firing of a scientist.” (CNN, 2006)
In conclusion it seems abundantly clear that there is very likely no such thing as perfect research. Humans are, for better or worse, flawed. Our lives, as well as our academic works, are subject to a multiplicity of pressures. Sometimes the flaws in research are intentional but probably more often accidental. In either case scholars and scientists should certainly not slow down the current rapid pace of inquiry. In the not-too-distant future solutions and insights may emerge to help us conquer the many questions and problems that plague humanity.
Even flawed research is preferable to no research. The next new important insight may be right around the corner. “But then, if the air is right and the science is going well, the sigh is immediately interrupted, there is a yawping new question, and the wild tumbling activity begins once more, out of control all over again.” (Thomas, 1974. p. 120.)
References
American Chemical Society. (2010). http://center.acs.org/periodic/tools/PT.html
BiomedExperts. (2010). http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/166567/NN
Cable News Network. (2006). http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/10/17/new.element.ap/index.html?section=cnn_education
Ely, M., et al. (1991). Doing Qualitative Research: Circles within Circles. London. Falmer.
Hammersley, M. (2010). What’s Wrong with Ethnography? The Myth of Theoretical Description http://soc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/597
Hammersley, M. & Gomm, R. (2010.) Bias in Social Research. Sociological Research Online.
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/cgi– bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?q=sure&showurl=%2F2%2F1%2F2.html
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. (2011). http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/index.html.
Thomas, L. (1974). The Lives of a Cell. New York: Viking Press
University of Warwick. (2010).An Introduction to Qualitative Methods.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/chughes/hughesc_index/teachingresearchprocess/qualitativemethods/
University of New Hampshire. (2011). Responsible Conduct of Research. http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/unh_round1/www.unh.edu/rcr/Misconduct-FraudGoTo2.htm
Visual Elements Periodic Table. (2015.) http://www.chemsoc.org/viselements/Pages/pertable_j.htm.
