Some research studies catch fire. They leap from discipline to discipline, get cited hundreds – sometimes thousands! – of times. They spark new theories, launch entire fields. They become the foundation for other discoveries.
But others? They land with a quiet thud. Sit unread on digital shelves. Fade away forgotten.
The studies employ the same structure, the same rigor. They’re published in the same journals even. So what makes the difference?
Some research goes on to change the world. Some quietly rots in a corner of the internet, cited only by the author’s mom. What makes the difference?
That’s what Dr. Dashun Wang and a team at Northwestern University set out to discover. They’re part of a field called the “science of science,” where researchers don’t just produce knowledge, they study how knowledge spreads.
So they did what researchers do best: they gathered data. And a lot of it.
They analyzed over 65 million research articles, patents, and software products. From more than 3 million teams. Spanning six decades of science and technology.
Then they dug in, measuring not just how often a piece of work was cited, but how deeply it shaped the course of future research.
They controlled for every variable they could think of: team size, funding levels, publication year, university prestige, journal impact, even the discipline itself.
FROM NORTHWESTERN – Dr. Dashun Wang, seen here figuring out why your brilliant paper got ignored while Steve’s group project went viral.
And when they ran the numbers, what they found was surprising, to say the least.
The studies with the greatest impact,
the ones that reshaped conversations, led to new breakthroughs and created new fields,
weren’t the ones from
the biggest names, or the most elite institutions,
or the labs with the flashiest equipment.
Rather, the most impactful research came from… small, diverse teams. That is, teams made up of people with different training, different disciplines, different ways of thinking.
These teams didn’t always speak the same language, linguistically or academically. So they had to explain themselves, listen carefully to each other, and stretch past their assumptions.
But that friction didn’t slow them down or make their work messier. It made their work sharper. Their ideas weren’t just novel. They were resilient. Their research wasn’t just cited. It became foundational.
You can read the full study here, but it boils down to this: their diversity, their difference – that was their strength.
There is strength in diversity. Clearly.
While that insight might be surprising to scientists, it shouldn’t be surprising to Christians familiar with the story of Pentecost.
In Acts chapter 2, we’re told of a crowd that gathered in Jerusalem. This crowd was less a neighborhood block party and more an international summit. All told Luke names 16 different nations that were represented in their number.
While all of those (hard-to-pronounce) place names are indeed pointing to a bunch of different geographic locations, they are also and more importantly pointing to a bunch of very different kinds of people.
For example, there were Parthians, likely silk merchants from the empire east of Rome, their robes heavy with privilege. Libyans, cowherds and traders from the margins, whose journey spoke of grit and devotion. Romans, self-assured citizens of empire, walking with the ease of power. Phrygians, rural pilgrims more at home with sheep than stone. Judeans, locals, temple regulars, insiders in every way.
And yet, when the Spirit came, it didn’t erase all that difference. It didn’t flatten accents or standardize meaning. It didn’t promote the dominant voice.
Instead, the Spirit spoke through the difference. Each person heard the message in their own language, with their own metaphors, cadences, assumptions, and heart.
In other words, in this moment – which is considered the very beginning of the church – the Holy Spirit seems to be saying that all this beautiful diversity and all this wonderful difference is going to be church’s strength.
At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit didn’t demand conformity but spoke to each person in their own language.
Science and scripture agree: when we bring different voices to the table, we’re better for it. When we speak in many voices, our message travels farther. When we honor the full spectrum of human experience, we reflect the image of God more fully.
Right now in America, there are a lot of politicians trying to sell us the lie that difference is dangerous and that diversity is a problem. But as Christians, that is a lie that we can’t give credence to.
Because in the end, our diversity, our difference, has always been and will continue to be the church’s strength.
