In research, will collaboration always produce better results?

We value collaboration and peer validation over single sources of insight and narrative

Our second manifesto item reflects how we have experienced great research efforts in various projects.

Many organisations and individual researchers agree that collaborative and open-minded research teams often create better insight and more relevant story-telling than individual researchers are able to achieve. The effect of people discussing what they have found, what the evidence might mean and how this applies to the questions that have been set, creates a result that is greater than the whole.

We believe that an environment that encourages different interpretations and points of view and that can encourage nuanced discussion is a better place to conduct and deliver research. The process of debate and validation is likely to produce better-supported narratives and give a greater sense of confidence when that research is used.

This process of discussion also helps identify where opinions might differ and shine a light on the areas that may, otherwise, be taken for granted. It improves research output by showing where further definition (or evidence) might be required and allows decision makers the chance to incorporate different views in their thinking.

Our inclusion of this in the Research Manifesto shows how important we believe collaboration and group validation to be. Do you agree? We’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences and learn how you’d want to interact with other researchers, whether they are on your team or drawn from a wider group (whether that be other sector specialists or a broader research community).

Related Articles

Responses