Hello Hamidreza Mokhtari Aski, interesting ?, that I don't know the answer to. However in saying that I must admit I've had a couple of dreams over the years that shed light on situations that I've grappled with, but these scenarios in dreams probably have no backing in the scientific literature if you were to try to find an evidence based solution to the problems. I think people should document these thoughts, dreams or imaginations in the context of what they are thinking about. They should try and give scientific backing to these perceptions if they can by looking at sequence, biological causation, cause effect and see if there is a possible connection between the perception and outcome. People in churches sometimes have thoughts that they think are from God, being solutions to problems whether or not in dreams or not, and at times maybe this is accurate and true, but at times I think they are just brain washed and there is no evidence or logic behind what they say and that is a serious problem as it can lead to mental health disorders due to the misguided teachings. Sorry I don't really have much to offer in terms of this question you are asking. All the best with getting some feedback. Thanks Debbie

Hi Hamidreza,

You have raised an interesting but contradictory normative question. Rather than what 'should be' the role of imagination compared to literature review in formulating hypothesis, it may seem more empirically sound to question the role of imagination in conducting scientific research.

My reasons are very simple: 1. the role of literature review in scientific research is indispensable and undisputable, and thus the researcher who fails to conduct proper and thorough literature review may end up 're-inventing the wheel' as they tend to warn in most research textbooks.2. apart from the numerous benefit of literature review, it also takes the imagination of the researcher to conduct meaningful and critical literature review, which incidentally helps in refining and/or reformulating the researcher's initial 'research question(s)' and 'propositions'. This is largely true both for 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' research design and approach.

In fact, for a researcher to formulate a hypothesis, he or she must have chosen a 'research topic' and come up with 'research question(s)' from which hypothesis would then be operationalised. All these initial research processes require serious imagination and logical reasoning as this stage is largely based on speculations and assumptions, which a good and uncompromised data gathering based on using appropriate and sound 'method(s)' would help to prove or disprove.

Moreover, good researchers are those who use their imagination and logical reasoning capacity extensively while conducting their research processes, without which their research work would not be of a very high quality standard.

Dear Hamidreza,

Literature review gives a solid and concrete foundation from which you can build your hypothesis. While framing your hypothesis as above you have to apply your imagination also to a large extent. Simply formulating hypothesis using literature review alone in a mechanical manner would not suffice. Similarly, just applying your imagination without a systematic literature review would not suffice. Thus, in a nutshell, both the above variables are equally important in formulating your hypothesis.

The role of logical reasoning is implied once you apply your imagination on previous research evidence, No?

Dr. MANOJ P K, CUSAT, KERALA, INDIA

the answers are really great but why Einstein said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ? could we say that by imagination Einstein meant something else like intuition or intuition itself is in imagination?

The problem I find with this question is the word ‘versus’. Placing imagination ‘versus’ literature review suggests that if we debate this issue long enough we might come to a point where one cancels the other. I think this kind of deliberation is very interesting and there is actually quite a lot to be gained from engaging in it. I quite like the answers so far that have stressed the usefulness of both. That, I think, is quite a safe way to frame the debate.

Nevertheless, the point I want to make is that, in at least the humanities, a review of the literature is so fundamental it really should not be juxtaposed in the way the question does; it should be given a distinct treatment. I would say the best way to approach research within the humanities is to anchor everything within the existing body of knowledge. This would include not just the hypotheses but your arguments. Even when your arguments are original it is important that you demonstrate an awareness of the field to which they apply and how they apply.

Classical grounded theory methodology allows and even encourages the use of ‘imagination’, but it has to be grounded in data. The term used is ‘theoretical sensitivity’ and it is similar to the concept of ‘abduction’ in Peirce’s Pragmatism

Good question with good answers. As my Irish mother used to say about intuition "you can feel it in your bones"