Why Researchers Spend So Much Time Proving The Obvious

I’m sure some of the stuff that goes on here induces a few ‘duh’ eye-rolls. How is it not obvious that drugs, depression and lack of sleep are bad for neurogenesis? Do we really need studies to tell us inmates have increased mental health issues after  being released from prison, or that they are less likely to re-offend of they get a college degree while in prison. So why do we seemingly wast time and money doing studies which seem like common sense? 

Experts say they have to prove the obvious — and prove it again and again — to influence perceptions and policy.

It’s easy to loose sight that research findings often say something about a population, policy or institution that may not want to change what they do or the way they do it.  So, it takes years of research, of baby steps to cover all the bases, sub groups, various conditions to define a problem, support a theory or point to ineffective practices that appeared prima facie valid.  A reason not mentioned in the article is to validate studies that have already been done to make sure the results are consistent before making any changes, or to make sure the right changes are pursued.

The article provides not so favorable, but true examples of why ‘duh’ studies exist: the push to continuously publish in academia, obtaining grants, etc. Hopefully one day open access can clear some of those institutional cob webs away. So it seems redundancy usually has a reason or at least, an excuse.