Retroactive Blessings

Sometimes, an intellectual pursuit become research retroactively. It receives what amounts to a retroactive blessing. Let's say that a scholar pursues an avenue of inquiry that appears to all his or her colleagues as being somewhat fanciful. By fanciful we mean that it does not follow any of the commonly accepted methodologies; it is not attempting to answer any of the current questions; and it does not appear to be yielding anything of obvious value. This scholar's colleagues may dismiss this activity as not being research. They may call it an intellectual pursuit. They may even call it a legitimate intellectual pursuit. But, they would probably stop short of calling it research.

Then over time, let's say five or ten years, it begin to bear fruit. Since this is a hypothetical, we can push it a bit. So, let's say it bears fruit in a big way. It popularizes a new methodological technique, it helps answer an unanswered question, or it opens up a whole new vein of productive research. Would we consider the work done for the past five or ten years to be research? I think the answer is that there is no question. It would be viewed as research.

Now let's consider what would happen if it did not bear fruit. Everything else was the same. There were five or ten years of investigation. But they came up empty. Would it then be considered research? Probably not. So the very same activity becomes research if it pays off and is not research if it doesn't.

Scholars like to say that research does not have to pay off in order to be research. But when they say that, they are talking about some fairly narrowly defined activities within the bounds of convention. So, if I set up and experiment, for example, to test a principle then it would probably be considered research regardless of the outcome as long as the experimental design was solid and the principle being tested was viewed as non trivial. However, if I just follow my curiosity, where ever it takes me, it would have to pay off eventually to not be considered folly.

Why do we do this? Well, overwhelmingly when people just drift off on their own the results are not productive. So, we allow scholars to take a fair amount of personal risk in their endeavors. If their interests do pay off eventually, then they are acknowledged retroactively. If they do not, then they just have to face the fact that they wasted their time. So, is it better for researchs to stay close to the conventional? Maybe not. That approach has its risks as well.