Retrace Your Process
The method of discovery often matters more than what is discovered. Like athletes who don't think about style during competition but practice it until it becomes automatic, effective researchers don't analyze their process while in the midst of it.
Instead, they establish a habit of retrospection—going back after a discovery to trace the steps that led there. "I had established the habit, after something of great or small importance was discovered, of going back and trying to trace the steps by which it apparently happened," Richard Hamming notes. But this retrospection has natural limitations. We can access "the conscious part, and a bit of the upper subconscious part," but the deepest workings remain hidden from view. "Do not be deceived," Hamming cautions, "we simply do not know how the unconscious works its magic." The process of discovery, while worth studying, retains an element of mystery that defies complete understanding.