There is a general bias in academic culture to focus on the fact that one of the things we learn through research is to be skeptical, at least in our fields of expertise. Andrew Pettegrew, a noted Reformation scholar set me straight though. We were at dinner and I started out a story by saying "You’ll never believe this." He interrupted me and said "I’m a scholar. I’m trained to believe the unbelievable." I don’t even remember what story I told, whether it dealt with my research or with something that had happened to me that afternoon, but his comment taught me what was hands down the single most important thing I learned in graduate school.

When I thought about it, I realized that is the more powerful and important skill that we learn through research. It’s not to have our bullshit detectors out constantly. Rather, it’s that we do research and testing and when the testing shows us something unbelievable, we don’t reject it because common sense tells us it isn’t so. We might need a second round of research and testing, more data, better controls. But in the end, it’s not our common sense and skepticism that allows us to think new things in new ways. Those are merely the obstacles that keep us from think foolish things in foolish ways, but nothing interesting, great or innovative ever comes from them.

Uncommon sense, backed with data, lies behind every idea worth propagating.

Before applying for research grants to fund my dissertation, I came across one of the most helpful pieces of advice that I’ve ever read. It can be applied beyond grant applications I’m sure, but I took this advice and nailed down a Fullbright and, even more difficult to get, a Châteaubriand. There’s a lot that goes into a good grant proposal, such as showing that you’ve done your background research, that you have thought through the feasibility of the whole thing, that you’ve demonstrated that you have the skills, knowledge and contacts to pull it off and that the grant itself is essential for doing so.

But then comes the question of why and the authors pointed out that this is a common stumbling block, though it never should be (that is, you might have trouble proving feasibility, because that’s the nature of fresh research, but you should never be at a loss as to why finding an answer would be worth it). I’ve since had a chance to read several grant proposals and surprisingly, this is often where the applications fail. It’s not uncommon to see applicants who give a reason for their study that is no reason at all. Exampe:

Reason: “This has never been done before”
Objection 1: Maybe that’s because it’s impossible.
Objection 2: Maybe because it’s uninteresting.

In any case, the fact that something has never been studied before doesn’t mean it should and certainly not that I should give you money to do it. Also, the reasons you want grant money are not necessarily the reasons you deserve grant money and you always need to know which is which.