“Don’t make it hard!” is my mantra for graduate research classes! My students get non-stop emphasis on developing “researcher mind” – the ability to ask good questions (inquiry) and analyze information / theories (critical thinking). Researcher mind can
(1) pro-actively solve problems BEFORE they are created
(2) determine how to correct problems that exist
(3) Identify areas for improvement
(4) prevent echo chamber thinking and mental manipulation
(5) help identify false misleading information
Having researcher mind is not about complexity: it’s about simplicity and clarity. First, it’s about asking the right questions!
Researcher Mind for “Real World” Leaders:
In one of my executive positions, I was presented with the numbers for staff turnover (a quantitative study – about quantities) – and tasked with reducing it. Lots of suggestions were made: improve working conditions, morale, team dynamics, etc. Funding was provided to do those things as I saw fit.
What wasn’t provided was a qualitative study (feelings, opinions) on ” Why are staff members leaving?” So I designed the “research” – mandatory exit interviews – and asked the question, “Why are you leaving?” Simple, clear and informative.
The division had 125 clerical positions, mostly filled by women. In the exit interviews, I learned over half of those women were military spouses. (If you have served in the military, you probably have the answer to the issue.) Rotations (moving to another military base) occur every two years. And when the husbands rotated, their spouses – our clerks – went with them. SIMPLE and CLEAR.
The unexpected outcome was an almost totally positive opinion of working in the division. So there was no need to improve working conditions, morale, team building, etc. I used the funding as I saw fit – and sent managers to trainings. Priceless.
A Mini-Course in Researcher Mind:
My research students start by reading an article I titled, Research Gone Wrong. Published by MIT (a leading university known for its intellectual rigor), it investigates phone walking. Phone walking is holding a not-in-use phone while walking. The researchers dubbed this a “previously unobserved phenomenon,” making it worthy of study. The location: Paris, France.
Researcher Mind Qualifying Questions:
What is the significance of this study? In other words – So What? Who cares? Why is this important? How can it change our body of knowledge for the better? How can it serve the highest good?
The answers to these questions would have found this topic insignificant and dismissed is as unimportant. It is NOT worthy of study.
New Research:
Because it is “new” and a “previously unobserved phenomenon” does not make it important. Here’s an example of a previously unobserved phenomenon that was important and worth studying. Having researcher mind would have made a million dollar difference.
When WalMart expanded into the Latin American market, they duplicated the successful US template – building huge super centers with huge parking lots. When almost no customers came, WalMart sent researchers to determine the problem. The answer was simple and clear. The potential customers didn’t have cars. They used public transportation, which meant walking across huge parking lots (built for the cars they didn’t have), to a bus stop. Shoppers couldn’t lug large and heavy sacks that far. WalMart had to add shuttles across the parking lots to / from bus stops to get business.
Numbers / Quantitative Research:
But back to the phone walking research, which was “quantitative” – which means it gathered quantities / numbers. If the question for phone walking is how many? you count and provide numbers. You don’t ask questions and you don’t make up reasons.
The findings were as follows:
* of 3,038 adult walkers, 674 were phone walkers (22%)
* of the phone walkers, 20% were men and 33% were women (I don’t know who the rest of the 100% were)
Not looking too good so far, is it? And with researcher mind, you might wonder about other details of the study.
1. Where was it?
Select streets in Paris, France.
2. How were the streets chosen to be part of the study?
3. Would the results have been different on different streets?
(ie: Is the gender mix significantly different in different areas of Paris?)
4. What day of the week was the study done?
(ie: a traditional work day? a leisure day?)
5. What time of day was the study done?
(ie: during the normal workday? before or after work?)
6. What was the mindset of the observers?
(ie: the cultural mix: age, gender, education? Were they trained to recognize cultural bias?)
7. Is there a cultural component around phones – phone-walking?
Who has phones?
OK, let’s assume all of these questions were adequately covered in the research design, with objective reasons / explanations for them. Then we can move on the the conclusions drawn from the research. Buckle up – because it gets to be a wild ride!
The reasons given for the disparity in numbers between male and female phone walkers were :
(1) women are more dependent on their phones
(2) carrying the phone can prevent it being stolen from a bag
(3) their boyfriends expect a response text within 5 minutes
(4) it could be social plumage that indicates romantic status, and could be equivalent to wearing a wedding ring.
(Note: No I did not make this up: this is published research!)
Clearly, there was zero justification for these made-up reasons except researcher mindset / bias.
Opinions / Qualitative Research:
Qualitative research means opinions, stories, etc. For this research, you ask open questions. If you want to know why more women than men phone walk, you ask both genders the same question:
“Why do you walk with your phone in your hand when you’re not using it?” SIMPLE and CLEAR.
At the end of the article, the researchers stated, “it might also be useful to ask phone walkers whether they are indeed in a relationship or not.” The problem here is
(1) it’s the wrong question
(2) the question shows researcher opinion and bias – assuming phone walking is related to relationships
The appropriate question is,
“Why do you walk with your phone in your hand when you’re not using it?” SIMPLE AND CLEAR.
Despite the flawed research design and outlandish findings, there was an unexpected and positive outcome. One woman who learned of the research posted on Twitter that the answer was obvious –
(1) her pockets aren’t large enough to hold her phone
(2) if she puts it in her bag, it sinks to the bottom, lost to easy retrieval
(3) in her hand, it’s handy for GPS, texts, and pix
Her twitter post sparked a near-universal cry for better pockets in women’s clothing. Julie Sygiel, an entrepreneur and strategy consultant, researched pocket size by gender (quantitative research – measurements / numbers). Julia’s on a quest to deepen women’s pockets to at least 8.5 inches so phones fit in them.
The last point about research is: You don’t conduct research to prove a point. Research is about investigation and discovery. If the results don’t surprise you, the research / research design could have been biased! Keep in mind – research often reveals more about the researcher than the topic being researched!
