Author: John Aldridge

In the academy(1), research is not always a collaborative experience, but rather, publishing is very competitive, somewhat like a World Series or Super Bowl championship game, but still different–extreme individualism rules! In competitive sports, as example, all season long, even the players on the same team compete amongst each other for a chance to start and be noticed.  This makes for a very interesting tension.  I call this “collaborative competition.” Likewise, one would assume that each research practitioner is working in concert with other researchers in a quest to uncover scientific truths, achieve superordinate goals(2); challenging assumptions, validate and confirm, thus, adding to the field of inquiry something new and important, a revelation or paradigm shift. The truth is, this rarely ever happens.  Yes, as many of you have pointed out in prior blog posts, some researchers do develop interesting insights that help validate existing studies but, most researchers simply focus on the results that merely reflect their own research bias. And… here is the rub, researchers don’t play well together. Unlike professional team sports, researchers are biased and prefer to play only with those that agree with their findings and perspectives, (Kuhn, 1991).  This is the very definition of group think and the conspiracy of mediocrity. Some scientists have observed that this particular pattern of interaction, working with only people that think alike, often leads to collaborative cheating (Ariely, 2012).

Indeed, philosopher Thomas Kuhn (1991) captures this interesting dynamic in his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Paradigms. Research bias is the seeds of group think and functional fixedness(3). How can we break away from this academic echo chamber?  How and where can one find the truth? Unbiased researchers will challenge assumptions and carefully and precisely reconstruct an experiment or study to see if the results hold up over multiple trials? This is called construct validity. It rarely ever does (Lash, 1999). 

The epistemic challenge for researchers is to seek the Spirit of Truth without wavering or pandering to a particular group’s perspective or bias.  I believe, researchers, everyone really, tend to fall into one of two camps; 1.) group think (everyone thinks alike) or, 2.) seekers of the Truth. The later group respects the autonomy of the First Amendment, one that embraces deep-level diverse opinions, alternative perspectives and actively engaging in inspired conversations. The prior group shuts down independent thought and free speech. To illustrate this dynamic, picture the normal distribution bell curve. God loves the bell curve. Everything in God’s creation fits into the normal distribution. Take all the leaves on any tree as example. You will have a small percentage of very large leaves and a small percentage of very small even tiny leaves. Overall, the vast majority of leaves will fall into the middle of the bell curve, thus, normal distribution. But, group thinkers, want to draw a skewed curve, over representing a very small sample of the population. I’ll say it again, God loves the bell curve. Think about that profound statement. Sadly, many academics, those teaching in higher education institutions today, cluster together around group think and the functional fixedness of their own biases. They “kick out” and shame anyone that does not agree with their opinions and perspectives. This is perhaps why there is so much division between alternative perspectives on research or anything for that matter. 

Remember, God loves a bell curve. What does this mean? It means that the normal distribution represents the vast majority which fall in-between either/or thinking. This is what some observers might call the “moral majority” or, “independent”. From a biblical perspective, we might recognize this as more integral. It is indeed ironic that, so called progressives, those that hold a more radical group think perspectives, fit more neatly in the extreme pinch points (ends) of the bell curve. Yet, they will argue for “inclusion” which represents the average or, normal distribution. Another example would be advocating for radical changes in the Constitution–a “living document” perspective–while at the same time arguing for “impeachment” based on the original framers intent of the document. You can’t have it both ways unless, of course, you are a liberal progressive. Unfortunately, the constructivist’s narrow-minded narrative seems to gain more traction than the truth.  But, I believe people are smart and can see through this cruel ruse. Only through authentic, honest and open (AHO) inspired conversations can we have the opportunity to break free from the bondage of liberal progressive social-constructivism. We represent the next generation of research practitioners that are committed to seeking the truth.  What is your perspective?

Ariely, D. (2012). The honest truth about dishonesty: How we lie to everyone–especially ourselves. New York: Harper Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1991). The structure of scientific revolutions. (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lash, S. (1999). Another modernity: A different rationality. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

1. A society or institution of distinguished scholars and artists or scientists that aims to promote and maintain standards in its particular field.
2. In social psychology, superordinate goals are goals that are worth completing but require two or more social groups to cooperatively achieve.
3. Functional Fixedness is a cognitive bias that limits a person to use an object only in the way it is traditionally used. A concept that rooted in Gestalt psychology,

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Karl Marx

I am a Christian and a fiscal conservative, independent thinker.  However, in these tumultuous times, I find it increasingly challenging to express my worldview openly to some of my friends and associates without being shamed or ridiculed by some for my personal perspective.  It’s gotten worse recently, I started experiencing disdainful scorn and self-righteous indignation.  As a Christian, I am mocked for being foolish and stupid. As a conservative educator, I am chastise and rebuked for my views on limited government, free market economics, poverty theory and social policy.  Have you noticed that thinking critically and having an honest alternative perspective is considered “offensive” and not tolerated by some people?  Forget about tolerance, that’s an oxymoron.  I don’t want to be merely tolerated.  I want to be understood and respected.  Have you too felt shunned either in face-to-face encounters or on social media?   I believe that we are missing an opportunity to experience community and the goodness that comes from developing intellectually and growing emotionally and spiritually through listening to each other and not talking over one another. Understanding alternative perspectives is the foundation for research methods and learning.  To achieve this, we need to become truth seekers.  Yet, some of my friends and colleagues have drunk the kool aid of moral relativism where there is no truth.  Ironically, they cannot tolerate diverse worldviews nor respect alternative perspectives. They choose to live in the echo chamber of their own group think.  This is not only boring, it’s dangerous.

How did we get here?

The deconstruction of everything sacred began with secularizing education a little over a hundred years ago. Thus, we see the beginnings of the secular/sacred divide and normalization of secular humanism. Accordingly, progressive postmodern dualism was ushered in shortly after the founding of scientific labs in Leipzig Germany around 1879, when Thomas H. Huxley organized a small group of German and American scientists, [primarily Gestalt psychologists] who sought to overthrow the cultural dominance of Christianity—particularly the intellectual / theological dominance of the Anglican Church, (Huxley’s grandson penned A Brave New World).  Their goal was to secularize society, replacing the Judeo-Christian worldview regarding the laws of nature and nature’s God, with a secular-humanist worldview that recognizes the existence of science alone, as observed in scientific labs. This biased perspective denies the apodictic (absolute) and self-evident Truths of the natural order of things and the Bible endowed by our Creator. Thus, public education today essentially advances a social constructivist agenda. Students are taught that they can rewrite history and socially construct their own realities. This is a lie! But, as I have stated earlier, they have drunk this kool aid and believe it.  Nevertheless, as secular humanists, Huxley and his advocates understood they were merely replacing one religion with another, for they described their goal as the establishment of the “church scientific.”  A search of the American Humanist Association reveals it is a tax exempt 501(c) (3) religious organization (americanhuminist.org retrieved on 3/14/2012). This has since been changed but the original intent hasn’t.  An example of the deconstruction of the spirit of truth and social construction of myth is illustrated in the hyperlink below. At the University of Colorado Boulder, for instance, in place of American Civics, students learn “the people’s history of the United States.”  http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html.

It is indeed ironic that is was Karl Marx who first said, “…religion is the opiate of the masses” but, it turns out liberal extremism / secular humanism and social constructivism appear to be the opiate of the masses.  What are your thoughts?  Please opine.