Reporters like to ask researchers, “What surprised you in this research?” It’s understandable, because the researcher’s prepared remarks are probably boring. But it’s unfortunate and I think we need a better way. 1/
The problem is we’re not usually trying to be surprised by our research, and if we are it’s usually not in a good way — it’s either a bad result or an unexpected result that we feel pressured to explain 2/
There’s a name for this: Hypothesizing After Results Known (HARK). It’s often not good science. But the most common answer is probably just a little lie, like “I was surprised by how strong the effect was.” This is like the job interview answer: greatest weakness, “too modest” 3/
I’m sorry I don’t have a alternative suggestion for reporters. On the researcher side, we can do better to make it interesting, or surprising, by explaining how the result is counterintuitive; or, if it’s not, why it really does matter. 4/4
