Are you familiar with Nassim Nicholas Teleb (2012) he takes academia to task as though we decide on the theoretical truths before we actually produce innovations. I think both your point and his are true, at least partially but not all the time. I refer you also to provocative thoughts in this recent WIRED article -https://www.wired.com/story/tyranny-neurotypicals-unschooling-education - the bottom line for me is to increase cognitive flexibility and creativity any way we can throughout academic circles without throwing out what we have learned about the rigors of research and peer review. Multiple venues for thought/discussion and publication seem one key ingredient in that. If our universities are too old fashioned we need to take leadership and be the voice of change.

Hope these snippets of a much longer conversation are useful to you.

A

Interesting question. I tend to also see situations on a continuum. An influential research project, for example, can be one with a lot of influence or small influence, but influence nonetheless. A project can be a totally new idea or even one that has built on the work of others. Thomas Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes how anomalies can give us excellent cues to new ideas and ways of looking at an aspect of science.

I've been doing research in the fields of death and dying and transpersonal experiences. Lots of good experts in those fields. I found it odd that individuals during a Near-death experience focused on out of place objects during those events, like red shoes on the roof of a hospital. They are close to death - one would think they would be worried about that. I analyzed some data and found it seems individuals in an altered state have different focus points than when in an every day state. One of the studies I did included an electronic sign for patients to see when they potentially could have an NDE. However, in an altered state an electronic sign would probably be of no interest to the subjects. Something more out of place would catch their attention.

I am hoping other researchers analyze more data and support what I've published, add to it or disprove it.

For me what's important for researchers is they pick an aspect of research for which they have talent and that excites them - narrow or wide. They then bring their own ideas and observations into the field of study and advance it in their own niche. Sometimes experts can be in different fields of study, too.

Good luck to you.

thanks for your comment

For individual studies, the focus has to be narrow and focused with strict adherence to a systematic method, but with an awareness of where the study is positioned in the field of knowledge.

Thanks, You named the point.

Unfortunately it does not go with the policy of serious Scientific Journals policy.

They prefer [usually] different approach, covering wide spectrum of problems, methods, solutions

and not

the PROBLEM

the METHOD

the SOLUTION

Yes! Narrower, but filling a gap in previous research and therefore the field of the study.