SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF RESEARCH & ITS SPECIAL FEATURES
Research MethodsSCIENTIFIC METHOD OF RESEARCH & ITS SPECIAL FEATURES
Research produces knowledge which could be used for the solution of problems as well as for the generation of universal theories, principles and laws. But all knowledge is not science. The critical factor that separates scientific knowledge from other ways of acquiring knowledge is that it uses scientific approach. What is this approach? Or what is science? When most people hear the word science, the first image that comes to mind is one of test tubes, computers, rocket ships, and people in white lab coats. These outward trappings are part of science. Some sciences, such as the natural sciences deal with the physical and material world. Some other sciences involve the study of people – their beliefs, behavior, interactions, attitudes, institutions, and so forth. They are sometimes called soft sciences. This is not that their work is sloppy or lack rigor but because their subject matter, human social life, is fluid, formidable to observe, and hard to measure precisely with laboratory instruments. The subject matter of a science (e.g. human attitudes, protoplasm, or galaxies) determines the techniques and instruments (e.g. surveys, microscopes, or telescopes) used by it.
Science is a way to produce knowledge, which is based on truth and attempts to be universal. In other words science is a method, a procedure to produce knowledge i.e. discovering universalities/principles, laws, and theories through the process of observation and re-observation. Observation here implies that scientists use “sensory experiences” for the study of the phenomena. They use their five senses, which are possessed by every normal human being. They not only do the observation of a phenomenon but also repeat the observation, may be several times. The researchers do so because they want to be accurate and definite about their findings
Re-observation may be made by the same researcher at a different time and place or done by other professionals at some other time or place. All such observations are made in this universe where a normal professional human being can go, make the observation and come back. Therefore we are focusing on this universe not on the one hereafter. By repeating the observation, the researchers want to be definite and positive about their findings. Those who want to be definite and positive are often referred to as positivists. The researchers do not leave their findings into scattered bits and pieces. Rather the results are organized, systematized, and made part of the existing body of knowledge; and this is how the knowledge grows. All this procedure for the creation of knowledge is called a scientific method, whereby the consequent knowledge may be referred to as scientific knowledge. In this way science refers to both a system for producing knowledge and the knowledge produced from that system. Since the subject matters of the researchers differ, therefore, we have the diversification of different sciences: broadly natural or physical sciences and human sciences.
Important Characteristics of Scientific Method
1. Empirical
Scientific method is concerned with the realities that are observable through “sensory experiences.” It generates knowledge which is verifiable by experience or observation. Some of the realities could be directly observed, like the number of students present in the class and how many of them are male and how many female. The same students have attitudes, values, motivations, aspirations, and commitments. These are also realities which cannot be observed directly, but the researchers have designed ways to observe these indirectly. Any reality that cannot be put to “sensory experience” directly or indirectly (existence of heaven, the Day of Judgment, life hereafter, God’s rewards for good deeds) does not fall within the domain of scientific method.
2. Verifiable
Observations made through scientific method are to be verified again by using the senses to confirm or refute the previous findings. Such confirmations may have to be made by the same researcher or others. We will place more faith and credence in those findings and conclusions if similar findings emerge on the basis of data collected by other researchers using the same methods. To the extent that it does happen (i.e. the results are replicated or repeated) we will gain confidence in the scientific nature of our research. Replicability, in this way, is an important characteristic of scientific method. Hence revelations and intuitions are out of the domain of scientific method.
3. Cumulative
Prior to the start of any study the researchers try to scan through the literature and see that their study is not a repetition in ignorance. Instead of reinventing the wheel the researchers take stock of the existing body of knowledge and try to build on it. Also the researchers do not leave their research findings into scattered bits and pieces. Facts and figures are to be provided with language and thereby inferences drawn. The results are to be organized and systematized. Nevertheless, we don’t want to leave our studies as stand alone. A linkage between the present and the previous body of knowledge has to be established, and that is how the knowledge accumulates. Every new crop of babies does not have to start from a scratch; the existing body of knowledge provides a huge foundation on which the researchers build on and hence the knowledge keeps on growing.
4. Deterministic
Science is based on the assumption that all events have antecedent causes that are subject to identification and logical understanding. For the scientist, nothing “just happens” – it happens for a reason. The scientific researchers try to explain the emerging phenomenon by identifying its causes. Of the identified causes which ones can be the most important? For example, in the 2006 BA/BS examination of the Punjab University 67 percent of the students failed. What could be the determinants of such a mass failure of students? The researcher may try to explain this phenomenon and come up with variety of reasons which may pertain to students, teachers, administration, curriculum, books, examination system, and so on. Looking into such a large number of reasons may be highly cumbersome model for problem solution. It might be appropriate to tell, of all these factors which one is the most important, the second most important, the third most important, which two in combination are the most important. The researcher tries to narrow down the number of reasons in such a way that some action could taken. Therefore, the achievement of a meaningful, rather than an elaborate and cumbersome, model for problem solution becomes a critical issue in research. That is parsimony which implies the explanation with the minimum number of variables that are responsible for an undesirable situation.
5. Ethical and Ideological Neutrality
The conclusions drawn through interpretation of the results of data analysis should be objective; that is, they should be based on the facts of the findings derived from actual data, and not on our own subjective or emotional values. For instance, if we had a hypothesis that stated that greater participation in decision making will increase organizational commitment, and this was not supported by the results, it makes no sense if the researcher continues to argue that increased opportunities for employee participation would still help. Such an argument would be based, not on the factual, data based research findings, but on the subjective opinion of the researcher. If this was the conviction of the researcher all along, then there was no need to do the research in the first place. Researchers are human beings, having individual ideologies, religious affiliations, cultural differences which can influence the research findings. Any interference of their personal likings and dis-likings in their research can contaminate the purity of the data, which ultimately can affect the predictions made by the researcher. Therefore, one of the important characteristics of scientific method is to follow the principle of objectivity, uphold neutrality, and present the results in an unbiased manner.
6. Statistical Generalization
Generalisability refers to the scope of the research findings in one organizational setting to other settings. Obviously, the wider the range of applicability of the solutions generated by research, the more useful the research is to users. For instance, if a researcher’s findings that participation in decision making enhances organizational commitment are found to be true in a variety of manufacturing, industrial, and service organizations, and not merely in the particular organization studied by the researcher, the generalisability of the findings to other organizational settings is enhanced. The more generalizable the research, the greater its usefulness and value. For wider generalisability, the research sampling design has to be logically developed and a number of other details in the data collection methods need to be meticulously followed. Here the use of statistics is very helpful. Statistics is device for comparing what is observed and what is logically expected. The use of statistics becomes helpful in making generalizations, which is one of the goals of scientific method.
7. Rationalism
Science is fundamentally a rational activity, and the scientific explanation must make sense. Religion may rest on revelations, custom, or traditions, gambling on faith, but science must rest on logical reason. There are two distinct logical systems important to the scientific quest, referred to as deductive logic and inductive logic. Beveridge describes them as follows:
Logicians distinguish between inductive reasoning (from particular instances to general principles, from facts to theories) and deductive reasoning (from the general to the particular, applying a theory to a particular case). In induction one starts from observed data and develops a generalization which explains the relationships between the objects observed. On the other hand, in deductive reasoning one starts from some general law and applies it to a particular instance.
The classical illustration of deductive logic is the familiar syllogism: “All men are mortal; Mahmood is man; therefore Mahmood is mortal.” A researcher might then follow up this deductive exercise with an empirical test of Mahmood’s mortality. Using inductive logic, the researcher might begin by noting that Mahmood is mortal and observing a number of other mortals as well. He might then note that all the observed mortals were men, thereby arriving at the tentative conclusion that all men are mortal. In practice, scientific research involves both inductive and deductive reasoning as the scientist shifts endlessly back and forth between theory and empirical observations. There could be some other aspects of scientific method (e.g. self correcting) but what is important is that all features are interrelated. Scientists may not adhere to all these characteristics. For example, objectivity is often violated especially in the study of human behavior, particularly when human beings are studied by the human beings. Personal biases of the researchers do contaminate the findings. Looking at the important features of scientific method one might say that there are two power bases of scientific knowledge: (1) empiricism i.e. sensory experiences or observation, and (2) rationalism i.e. the logical explanations for regularity and then consequent ional argumentation for making generalizations (theory).
Finally it may be said that anybody who is following the scientific procedure of doing research is doing a scientific research; and the knowledge generated by such research is scientific knowledge. Depending upon the subject matter, we try to divide the sciences into physical or natural sciences and the social sciences. Due to the nature of the subject matter of the social sciences, it is rather very difficult to apply the scientific method of research rigorously and that is why the predictions made by the social researchers are not as dependable as the predictions made by the natural scientists.
Recent Comments