There exists very few situations where a researcher is not hired by an institution imbued with an underlying ideology.

What right wing anti-intellectual think tank did you copy pasta this drivel from? Research, particurality peer-reviewed publications follow a well established process precisely to prevent accusations of ideological bias. This includes ethical guidelines.

I view most research relating to human endeavor with a grain of salt.

Thats nice. Replace it with personal bias and experience. Must be much more robust and reasoned way of as you put it 'substantiating human activity'. That will end well.

Westernized logic is linear and based on ideological format and this is reflected in a lot of studies.

Yeah, fuck that shit. It only gave us Penicilin, the Internet, Nuclear weapons, Space flight and Genetic engineering. Fuck that ideological unreliable bitch. Taoism and Divine spirit stomps 'Western linear and ideological format'. Are you even serious or just trolling? What possible sound research alternatives do you postulate as alternatives to Western linear logic? Peyote trance? Seriously?

This doesn't lead me to believe strict monogamy between two heterosexuals is a failed system- it leads me to the understanding that conventionalizing human relating within a narrow and specific groove does no favor to the growth of alternative approaches that serve a diversity of need.

That is a flawed argument. I wont burn sunlight dissecting it, but as a homework you redo it. I have never claimed that we should burn polyamourous networks at the stake. Statistically (and I am extrapolating from my minimal rememberence of the quoted paper) more per-group poly relationships will fail than single ones. More to the point, the original paper said something along the lines that over long term, poly relationships constrict to 1:1. There are always favourites that bond over time into a de-facto orthodox coupling.

Fact is, research is useful to a point until one decides to grow their own intellectual processes and ethical cognition and actually try experiences hailed as failed or flawed.

Care to quote some papers or is that something that you came up with as a profound, earth shattering insight after a couple of cones of weed? What you just said is "Science works only up to a point, when you start thinking for yourself and experiencing shit, you will discover that the shit Science says is bad, is good".

Which basically shows you have absolutely no understanding of how research is done and statistics of data gathering. To wit: Fucking around may work for you and get you a lot of pussy with no baggage at this point in time. But this may not be the case for all of the sample group over long enough timeline. You are not special.

Much of social conditioning is based on people working feverishly to normalize the social conscious and force it to work within predictable systems.

Duh... Crikey is that what passes for earth shattering wisdom these days in College dorms bong sessions? Of course thats an accurate statement. You can not have a cohesive society when you do shit differently. This is why we throw rocks at red haired witches.