Characteristics of a Good Researcher (Part 5)

H. Holistic and Structured Approach to Understanding Problems

The process of thinking, in addition to requiring the researcher’s knowledge of the available information, is only possible in the light of the integration and adjustment of information. So lack of the ability of systematic thinking not only makes thinking difficult but sometimes even makes it difficult to think. In other words, a person who does not have the ability to adjust and categorize information in the face of a problem cannot easily access this information in their minds. 

In other words, one of the most important stages of thinking (encountering a question, referring the question to a set of subjective information and discovering relevant information, selecting relevant information, and arranging them to obtain answers through deductive composition) is finding the relevant information for the leading question. This is possible when one has coherent, systematic, and classified information. Otherwise, the researcher will not be able to continue the process of thinking and solve the problem.

The important thing is that the researcher is like someone who owns a stack of books. But if the books are not classified, that person will not be able to find her desired book. S0 instead of finding this book prefers to buy it. A person whose mind is cluttered with information, instead of finding the desired information in their own mind, tries to find it by asking questions from someone else, who may not have as much information but has categorized them.  It should be noted here that one may have a mind full of information, but if this information is incoherent it cannot be helpful. It may even be a cause of confusion. Given this, one can clearly understand the status and significance of systematic thinking.

In other words, all sciences have a certain kind of categorization. They are categorized into basic, average, and completely practical. So if one does not have a coherent mind, they cannot distinguish between different areas of thought and specify their starting point. Thinking of each other and not precisely determining the starting point of your thinking. The systematic thinking approach not only makes it easier for the researcher to answer partial questions but also provides the basis for comparing the macrostructure of one epistemic domain with another. The consequence of this type of intellectual power is in some cases, so influential that it not only leads to the solution of minor problems but also to the formation of a new epistemic branch. Examples include analytical geometry, which is the product of the combination of algebra and geometry or mathematical logic, which is the product of the combination of logic and mathematics.

The formation of interdisciplinary knowledge such as political economy or political sociology is, in fact, the product of such intellectual ability. The more systematic the mind of a person is, the more the product produced through the combination of extraordinary epistemic knowledge is reliable. Not only do the general public disregard the methodological dimensions of the information presented, but above all, they do not seek to adjust and integrate their knowledge. In contrast, a good researcher, in addition to quickly understanding the information, has also considered its various dimensions, seeking to discover the intrinsic and extrinsic relevance of their information. Having this structured thinking provides a good basis for linking current knowledge with previous knowledge, thus they are able to compare their current knowledge with their previous knowledge and discover the internal conflicts of their views. Of course, this is only one side of the coin because the constructivist tendency of the mind to integrate existing data with new information leads to a large and transversal structure. At a higher level, this can lead to the development of new interdisciplinary sciences such as mathematical logic, analytical geometry, and political economy. The importance of this issue is so great that some scientists, with a kind of extreme approach, invite all thinkers to combine their intellectual elements and urge them to enter into such an intellectual, personalized mental world. Regardless of this extreme recommendation, what is seen as an objective reality, both psychologically and sociologically, is a structuralism tendency in talented people and the production of new sciences with a mixed approach and the design of macro structures in sciences.


Related Posts:

Characteristics of a Good Researcher (Part 4)


Characteristics of a Good Researcher (Part 3)

Characteristics of a Good Researcher (Part 2)

Characteristics of a Good Researcher (Part 1)

Was this post helpful?

2 thoughts on “Characteristics of a Good Researcher (Part 5)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *