One of the first questions that I am asked when I am interviewed by the media on lost loves is, "Why did you choose this topic?" The translation of what they are saying is this: "You must have had a lost love experience of your own that caused you to research rekindled romances, so tell us about it."
Yes, I tried a reunion, decades ago. I have also been divorced, moved across the country, lost a parent, and had a lifetime's worth of experiences that I have never researched and never will. On the other hand, I have researched how psychotherapists are portrayed in films and on television, but I have never been a psychotherapist, and I wrote an article on grandparents, although I am not a grandparent.
There are leading divorce researchers who are happily married and have never been divorced; and there are psychologists whose research and books have catapulted them to expert status on infidelity, even though they have never experienced infidelity personally. Yet most journalists begin with the assumption that, if the psychology research is about romantic relationships or their endings (as opposed to, say, my published research on psycholinguistics), then the research psychologist must have used his or her real life as a catalyst, to work through their own "issues," rather than for the pursuit of science. Don't we see this sort of thinking in TV and film dramas?: the psychotherapist character is working through his or her dysfunctional life by talking to clients - a wounded healer.
Sure, a media story is best with a human element in it. But when I am interviewed about child rearing, the media appropriately interview me as a professor of developmental psychology who has professional expertise; they never inquire as to whether I am a mother, let alone whether I am a successful parent.
Is real-life experience with the research topic necessary for professional success?: Is it possible for a psychologist to do valid research on child development if the researcher has never been a parent? Of course. Must a psychologist who studies racism have a personal stake in that topic - personal background that needs to be part of the media story? No. Can a man do research on women's issues? Yes, he can.
Alternatively, if a competent researcher has had a personal experience with the research topic, does that invalidate it, color the research with personal opinions? No. When the researcher's personal experience becomes part of the media story, do people take the research less seriously? Yes, unfortunately, I think they do, and that's why I am writing about this.
So how do psychologists choose their research topics? Sometimes, we find ourselves in the company of colleagues who are doing something, and we see that we can contribute our expertise to broaden that topic if we collaborate. Sometimes a relative or friend has an experience, so we want to know more about that issue, especially if we have expertise in that area and see that an angle is missing in published research. Sometimes an editor approaches us and asks us to research something and write an article about it. There are probably as many reasons why psychologists choose their research topics as there are reasons why novelists choose their subject matter - and like psychologists, novelists are often assumed to be writing about themselves.
In my case, I had a sabbatical semester to do research, and I chose the topic "empty nest;" I submitted a proposal to the university to research the aftermath of children leaving home, the effects of that milestone on the parents. But once I started to read the journal articles on empty nest, I learned that there was already a lot of research in that area; I knew that there was no research at all on rekindled romances, so I changed my topic to make (hopefully) a greater contribution to the field and give valuable information to people conflicted by rekindled romances.
My past reunion was very helpful for writing the survey, especially since I had no prior research on this topic to build on: I knew which questions would be most pertinent to ask. The profile of couples that emerged from my survey results was completely different from the reunion I personally experienced, and different from my hypotheses going into the research. The surprising results made the topic interesting.
My goal was to survey 65 couples and write a report that semester, spring of 1994; I had no idea that the topic was so complex and that it would still hold my attention so many years and thousands of couples later!
Yes, I had a reunion with a college boyfriend many years ago. No secret affair for either of us; we were engaged, but it ended. Very fortunately, I have no unresolved feelings about it. I am not one of the couples in my research. I am the psychologist who researches couples who have experienced lost love reunions. The fascinating media story is in the data, not in my past history. And I still hope to research empty nest issues someday.
Learn more about Dr. Kalish's research at http://www.lostlovers.com
