The Brookbush Institute Publishes a NEW Article: 'New Research is NOT Better Research'
New Research is NOT Better Research - https://brookbushinstitute.com/articles/new-research-is-not-better-research
The Brookbush Institute continues to enhance education with new articles, new courses, a modern glossary, an AI Tutor, and a client program generator.
- Related Glossary Term: Evidence-based Practice
- Related Courses: Human Movement Specialist (HMS) Certification
INTRODUCTION
The belief that “newer research is better research” is a teaching failure, not a scholarly position. Date of publication does not predict accuracy. Factors that affect accuracy include methods, outcome measurement sensitivity, appropriate statistical analysis, transparent synthesis, and many other aspects of the scientific research process. If it is believed that only research published in the last 5–10 years is acceptable, then what massive paradigm shift occurred that rendered all prior research inferior? What could have happened ten years ago that made anyone publishing before that date look foolish, and everyone who has published since look like an innovative genius?
Does anyone question the theory of relativity (1905), the synaptic model of the nervous system (1906), the structure of DNA (1953), or the sliding filament theory (1954)? If a paper was published tomorrow on any of these topics, without additional education, could they claim to be more accurate simply because the publication is more recent?
The Fallacy
Appeal to Novelty (argumentum ad novitatem) presumes an assertion is superior or correct solely because it is newer. Sometimes new work is better, but not because it is new. New research may be better when prior research is used to identify opportunities for improved methods, when new technology becomes available at a price that can be integrated into a study, or when more sensitive outcomes or larger samples allow more rigorous analysis. Although it might be expected that iterative improvement is common, it is not. As noted above, methods used over the last 50–70 years have been relatively similar.
Fallacy in Action
This bias is built into the academic system. Teachers and professors assign papers, yet often accept citations only from the last 5 or 10 years. Instruction on using a research database often begins by setting a date filter. Capstone and thesis templates may require a fixed proportion of citations from the last five years...
FOR THE COMPLETE ARTICLE, CLICK THE LINKS ABOVE!
Brent Brookbush
Brookbush Institute
Support@BrookbushInstitute.com
Visit us on social media:
LinkedIn
Instagram
Facebook
YouTube
TikTok
X
Other
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
