I just finished reading another research article for possible use in an upcoming podcast and while I think the study itself was well done, I am once again left wondering why it all has to be so boring. I mean, we tell students (at least I did) that we do research because we're curious about human behavior. We usually do research because we've observed something about ourselves and we want to understand it better.
After this initial curiosity we usually talk about our research idea with friends and colleagues over lunch. We even get excited about it. Now, of course, the research process itself is a serious matter and I am not saying that we need to dumb down the process (blah, blah, blah). I'm just saying that what comes out the other end - the published article - is typically so mindnumbingly boring to read. And it's not just that. The other thing that discourages me is that all the curiosity, all the excitement the researchers probably had at the start of the process is nowhere to be found in the publication. In fact, I'm not even clear as to what the researchers saw as important (even potentially interesting) about this research I just read. Isn't there a way to capture ANY of the initial excitement? Can't we have a section in which researchers are allowed to tell us what the applications of the research are to "real life"? I know they sometimes do this in the Discussion, but you'd often be hard pressed to find it. We criticize lawyers for their cryptic legal documents - what about us? No wonder students hate research methods. We've sucked the "wonder" out of it. Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=15138 or send a blank email to leave-15138-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
