Suppose for some big problem that research labor is plentiful and time is short. Obviously the first thing to do is to divide the research into subproblems and research them in parallel. But what if the number of research teams still exceeds the number of real subproblems identified?
One possibility: some teams preregister methodologies for each subproblem, then each remaining team picks one to copy and perform independently, like replication, but concurrently with the original team.
Possible advantages of this approach:
* Redundancy: If one team gets stopped or delayed, you still get the preliminary result on time.
* Immediate replication: If all goes well, you get the more confident replicated result faster than with sequential replication.
* Faster error detection: If there is a discrepancy in results, there could be immediate investigation of what the teams did differently.
* Research capital: The “extra” teams get to spend their time doing real research instead of other things, presumably making them better at doing real research for when more subproblems become available.
* Replication motivation: Public reports of the results of the first team to finish could mention the other teams by name, thus creating more prestige for replication.
And for more conceptual rather than empirical research, the teams might go in completely different directions and generate insights that a single team or individual would not.
Simultaneous Redundant Research
Suppose for some big problem that research labor is plentiful and time is short. Obviously the first thing to do is to divide the research into subproblems and research them in parallel. But what if the number of research teams still exceeds the number of real subproblems identified?
One possibility: some teams preregister methodologies for each subproblem, then each remaining team picks one to copy and perform independently, like replication, but concurrently with the original team.
Possible advantages of this approach:
* Redundancy: If one team gets stopped or delayed, you still get the preliminary result on time.
* Immediate replication: If all goes well, you get the more confident replicated result faster than with sequential replication.
* Faster error detection: If there is a discrepancy in results, there could be immediate investigation of what the teams did differently.
* Research capital: The “extra” teams get to spend their time doing real research instead of other things, presumably making them better at doing real research for when more subproblems become available.
* Replication motivation: Public reports of the results of the first team to finish could mention the other teams by name, thus creating more prestige for replication.
And for more conceptual rather than empirical research, the teams might go in completely different directions and generate insights that a single team or individual would not.