And sometimes, we hear about research that CONTRADICTS our beliefs and practice.<\/p>\n
Honestly, that’s a punch to the gut. “Wait,” says that voice, “I’ve been wrong all this time<\/em>?”<\/p>\n This discomfort often prompts us to use a handy rejoinder: “well, you can find research that proves anything…”<\/p>\n The not so subtle implication: “yes, this<\/em> research says\u00a0that — but this research doesn’t really matter because even absurd positions can find research backing<\/em>…”<\/p>\n So, what should we do when a colleague rejects our research-based advice with this claim? Or, what should we do when we find ourselves saying it?<\/p>\n In the first place, I’m honestly not so sure that we can find reseach that says anything.<\/p>\n Let’s take a common piece of teaching advice: “teachers should shake hands with their students as they enter the classroom.”<\/p>\n Can we find research supporting, or contradicting, this claim? If “we can find research that says\u00a0anything<\/em>,” we certainly should be able to.<\/p>\n Well, so far I haven’t found any research examining this question.<\/p>\n As I’ve written before, Dr. Clay Cook found that “positive greetings<\/a>” at the door produced specific benefits for specific students.<\/p>\n But his research doesn’t remotely suggest that all teachers should “shake-in” at all times. (For one thing: “positive greetings” don’t have to be handshakes.)<\/p>\n I just asked Elicit.org<\/a> this handshake-at-the-door question. The closest answer I found is a study<\/a> showing that female professors get higher ratings on the first day of class when they shake in, whereas male professors get lower ratings.<\/p>\n But again: that study neither confirms nor contradicts the larger claim about daily handshakes.<\/p>\n It seems that we\u00a0can’t<\/em>\u00a0always “find research that proves anything.”<\/p>\n But let’s agree that we can find research supporting lots of strange conclusions — or, at least, conclusions I disagree with. What should we do when that happens?<\/p>\n Imagine that a friend tells me: “chewing gum increases learning.”<\/p>\n When I ask him if he’s found research supporting that position, he grins broadly and says: “check this<\/a> out.”<\/em><\/p>\n So, let’s check it out!<\/p>\n A cursory glance suggests that — yes — my friend has found research supporting his position, but it’s not terribly persuasive<\/em> research.<\/p>\n It includes exactly 16 participants.<\/p>\n It’s published in a journal that focuses on engineering (not, say, memory, or learning).<\/p>\n Its method of measuring attention is … well … HIGHLY unscientific.<\/p>\n In other words, my friend found research supporting this claim; however, I didn’t need to look very hard to find reasons to doubt it.<\/p>\n That is: it doesn’t really matter if I can find research that “proves anything.” What matters is if I can find GOOD research supporting a particular claim.<\/p>\n But, is GOOD research enough? If I find one well-done study, should I accept that chewing gum does promote memory?<\/p>\n When I got started in this field, I noticed that the scholars I admired most shared a surprising intellectual habit:<\/p>\n They shift to curiosity.<\/strong><\/p>\n That is:<\/p>\n Person 1 says: “research shows that chewing gum improves learning!<\/i>“<\/p>\n Person 2 says: “nope; research shows that chewing gum has no effect at all on learning<\/em>.”<\/p>\n At this point, person 1 might say: “well, you can find research that shows anything. You’re obviously wrong. My research is correct.”<\/p>\n Or, person 1 might say: “wow, I’m curious that we have seen research that arrives at contradictory conclusions! Let’s explore…”<\/p>\n Over the years, I’ve come to rely on two sources when I feel curious<\/em> and want to explore<\/em>.<\/p>\n Scite.ai<\/a> asks how often a particular study has been cited overall; how many times its findings have been confirmed; and how many times its findings have been contradicted.<\/p>\n Connectedpapers.com<\/a> looks at the most frequently cited papers related to the topic, and creates a cool spiderweb diagram to show their connections.<\/p>\n Using these websites, person 1 and person 2 can plug in their studies, and see how many OTHER studies arrive at their conclusions.<\/p>\n That is: rather that rely on just ONE study, we can look at a WHOLE GROUP of studies to reach our conclusion.<\/p>\n When I use these tools to explore the chewing gum claim, as I’ve written before<\/a>, I arrive at several conclusions:<\/p>\n First: researchers have done a surprising amount of work on this topic. (It seems like SUCH a niche-y question that I’m surprised folks have investigated it substantively.)<\/p>\nStep #0: Let’s Check<\/h2>\n
![\"Child](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Success-Graph.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nStep #1: Start Reading<\/h2>\n
Step #2: Get Curious<\/h2>\n