Beyond the buzzword, “research.”

In our everyday discourse, the word “research” has become a catchall term, easily tossed into conversations to validate statements, boost advertisements, or justify political decisions. From market surveys to opinion polls and corporate promotions, “research” is frequently claimed as an authoritative endorsement, even when the underlying processes lack the rigour that defines real research. This casual use has diluted the term, obscuring its true purpose and methods. So, what is research, really, and how do we reclaim its essence in a world of buzzwords?

To understand research in its authentic form, we must first address common misconceptions. Research is not merely the collection of data or facts without purpose. Reorganising or rebranding pre-existing information without analysis does not meet the standards of research. Simply stating that a finding is “based on research” does not inherently imply a systematic, unbiased, or meaningful investigation. Rather, research proper is grounded in systematic methodology, logical relationships, and a clear objective, whether to describe, explain, analyse, or offer insight. These elements elevate research from an everyday buzzword to a purposeful, structured pursuit of knowledge.

When done correctly, research is about “finding things out” in a manner that prioritises truth-seeking over mere affirmation of preconceived ideas. A real research process is rigorous, requiring careful data collection and interpretation under a defined purpose. The term “systematic” is key here; it suggests that the conclusions drawn are based on logical processes, not on subjective beliefs or opinions. For example, research that aims to explore a business challenge isn’t about confirming what management might wish to hear. Instead, it probes the issue from multiple angles, allowing for a diversity of findings that may affirm, refute, or reshape initial assumptions.

Business and management research brings unique demands and complexities. Managers, often key stakeholders in such research, require findings that are both relevant and actionable. At the same time, however, business research borrows from a range of disciplines such as economics, psychology, sociology, each bringing its own methodologies and insights. This interdisciplinary approach is both an advantage and a challenge, as it necessitates adapting these tools to address the unique needs of business environments. Furthermore, managers, who often have limited time, may only consent to participate in research that shows potential benefits for their operations or decision-making processes. As such, successful business research typically yields practical implications or guides potential actions.

Gerard Hodgkinson, Peter Herriot, and Neil Anderson offer a thought-provoking taxonomy of managerial knowledge[1], classifying it along dimensions of theoretical rigour and practical relevance. They identify four categories: pedantic science, which values methodological rigour over real-world applicability; popularist science, which is practically useful but may sacrifice methodological rigour; puerile science, which lacks both rigour and relevance; and pragmatic science, the ideal category, which balances rigour with practical relevance. Pragmatic science is particularly suited for business research, as it offers managers valuable insights grounded in methodological rigour, blending theory with practical application. This category underscores the delicate balance required to conduct research that is both credible and beneficial to real-world business environments.

The process of conducting research, especially in fields like business and management, is far from linear. While often presented as a straightforward series of steps, research is, in reality, a dynamic, iterative process. Researchers frequently revisit initial stages, refining their ideas and adjusting methods based on preliminary findings. A seemingly promising hypothesis might prove irrelevant or unworkable, necessitating adjustments. Ethical considerations and issues related to data access may also arise unexpectedly, adding layers of complexity. The process is thus one of constant reflection and adaptation, qualities that underscore the need for patience and an openness to unexpected outcomes.

In a world saturated with the term “research,” it is essential to distinguish between mere data aggregation and genuine research. The value of research lies not only in its conclusions but in the systematic, methodical journey of arriving at those conclusions. Each phase of the process, from designing the study and collecting data to analysing and interpreting results, contributes to the reliability and relevance of the findings. Unlike the simplified depictions of research as a linear journey, real research reflects a more complex reality that demands flexibility, critical thinking, and attention to ethical standards.

The proliferation of research-based claims across advertising, politics, and the media highlights the need for critical literacy among the public. When an advertisement claims that “research shows” a product’s superiority, or a politician references “research” to support a policy, we should ask: What was the purpose of the study? Was the methodology rigorous and unbiased? Are the findings presented transparently? By critically engaging with these claims, we can become more discerning consumers of information and reinforce the value of genuine research.

In reclaiming the integrity of research, we should emphasise that it is not just a tool for supporting pre-existing ideas or promoting products. Rather, research is a disciplined method of inquiry that enables us to expand our understanding of the world, refine our theories, and make informed decisions. It is this commitment to seeking truth, rather than convenience or affirmation, that sets research apart from other forms of information gathering.

So, as the term “research” continues to be bastardised across contexts, let us advocate for its proper use and appreciation. True research is more than a label; it is a journey of discovery that, when conducted rigorously, can yield insights of genuine value.

[1] Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner‐researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here??Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,?74(4), 391-411.