TED'S TAKE: CONVERGENT RESEARCH VERSUS CONVERGENT THINKING

 In health research today, there is a buzzword: convergent research. The term suggests research moves toward a shared  outcome centered on the patient. In reality, many different projects are underway at any time, and over time they may begin to align around a specific problem or issue. That alignment matters because research is funded and conducted from various perspectives and does not always follow a common theme – in some ways, it shouldn’t.

convergent research is a good thing. It allows people to learn from each other, with  differing perspectives  improving  the work. Hopefully that exchange leads to outcomes that ultimately benefit patients.

Something else is also happening in research – “convergent thinking.” When we work in similar research area, read the same research papers, and attend similar lectures, our thinking tends to align. Over time, folks tend to arrive at similar opinions and conclusions.

This can be reinforced in review settings. When organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) convenes research review panels, they often select people who have worked with the NIH before or been on previous review panels. It’s not surprising that those with shared backgrounds find similar judgements.. A kind of group think emerges sometimes influenced by what panelists believe the organizers expect to hear.

In other words, individuals  from the same professional circles,  with similar education, credentials, and timelines, often approach questions and outcomes in similar ways.

When I participate in panels, I ask a simple question: do they want my opinion, or do they want my credentials? If it’s the latter, I decline. If it’s the former, I need to know if they are ready for an independent view – one not shaped by a preconceived answer of what they “want” me to say.