What Sherlock can teach researchers

1 December 2010

assets/images/BlogImages/Baker_Street_Tube_Station.jpg

As researchers, we love trends. We like discovering trends that we can share with clients, and we love learning about trends that help us do our jobs better. But can we learn anything that will make us a better research from something ‘old school’?

At a recent trip to my favourite second-hand bookshop near Bloomsbury, I found a copy of a collection of Sherlock Holmes stories. So for a mere £4, I took Mr. Holmes and Dr. Watson home with me. As I raced through each story, I was impressed how well the stories have held up nearly 100 years after they were written – they have lost none of their intrigue, adventure or ingenuity. As Sherlock solves each mystery, he is only too happy to share how exactly he came to his conclusions. These lessons aren’t simply made for solving crimes, I believe Sherlock can even teach a few things to researchers.

Observation 1: Data first, then make conclusions

“I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

“A Scandal in Bohemia” (1891)

On a case involving European royal families and blackmail, Dr. Watson is very eager to find out what Sherlock thinks of the case in hand. Rather than jumping to untested shaky conclusions, the Baker Street detective proceeds to wait until all data is in before trying to solve the mystery.

Often we as researchers (along with our clients) attempt to solve the mystery before we even conduct our first focus group or launch a survey. As Sherlock points out, putting a theory before we have all the data corrupts all research. The test then for a skilled researcher is to resist the temptation of molding data to fit the way we (or our clients) want the data to present.

Observation 2: Do not allow one train of thought to derail the bigger question

“Excellent, Lestrade, excellent!” [Holmes] cried. “But I didn't quite follow your explanation of the destruction of the busts."

“The busts! You never can get those busts out of your head. After all, that is nothing; petty larceny, six months at the most. It is the murder that we are really investigating, and I tell you that I am gathering all the threads into my hands.”

“The Adventure of the Six Napoleons” (1904)

Someone is breaking into people’s homes curiously destroying the same copy of a bust of Napoleon. During one of these burglaries, a man is murdered. While the policeman Lestrade allows a solitary murder to consume his attention, Sherlock realizes that the murder is part of the bigger picture and not the entire picture.

Sometimes we as researchers may pounce upon a lone remark in an in-depth interview or a solitary spike in a pile of quant data and then shape a story around that. The challenge, as Sherlock shows, is that the lone remark or solitary spike in itself may be interesting to point out, but we must tell the entire story in order to be true to all the data.

Observation 3: Absent evidence can be even more telling than present evidence

Gregory (the Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

“Silver Blaze” (1892)

A prized race horse is stolen from a stable in the middle of the night. The ‘curious incident’ of the dog was his lack of noise during the night – after all, wouldn’t a dog bark when seeing a stranger? Therefore, Sherlock was able to conclude that the thief was someone the dog knew.

What can separate a good researcher from a great researcher is looking beyond the obvious – any competent researcher can pull out sharp verbatim or chart flashy graphs. However, it’s digging deeper into data – or in Sherlock’s example, looking at what is absent – that pushes a researcher to greatness.

Elementary…

Dr. Watson repeatedly observes throughout the stories that Sherlock could have easily found success in a number of other occupations – ranging from stage actor to master criminal. Would Mr. Holmes have also been a successful researcher? Undoubtedly yes, but shamefully, deerstalker caps may not fit well in a focus group environment. However, the research community may benefit from a few lessons from a Baker Street detective (case in point below).

Write a comment

Required fields are marked with *.