It was not until the researchers actually engaged with the original case study document in such detail that the real benefits of the hermeneutic investigative process became apparent. The detailed creation of the derivative texts that focused on one perspective at a time forced us to review and in a way to confront our own prejudices. Each hermeneutic cycle, as evidenced by the different perspectives and subsequent derivative documents, enhanced the understanding. It was as if each text created its own horizon and in that process this fusion occurred very quietly.

The introduction of the second hermeneutic investigator who created another derivative text from a completely different perspective allowed an almost three dimensional view of the problem. This contribution had the potential to create a conflict not unlike a debate, where one seeks a winner. But when the principles of dialectic were enforced, rather than a debate ensuing, it seems that fusion occurred, leading to an even broader understanding.

Another interesting side effect of this collaborative hermeneutics was that each of the researchers again had another view of their own prejudices, as well as what turned out to be a quite stimulating debate, not on the respective validity of these perspectives, but on the sheer value and importance of dialectics.

The first researcher then wanted to locate and feed every possible available document on the Denver International Airport into the investigation just to make sure that nothing had been left unchecked and that there were no more hidden reasons for the events that occurred.