LECTURE 3 : SCIENCE
- LECTURE 3 : SCIENCE
The frequent repetition of the notions of scientific knowledge and scientific research raises the question of what science is and what promotes knowledge or research to be scientific. According to (Bhattacherjee, 2012), science stands for a systematic and organized body of knowledge in any area of inquiry that is acquired using “the scientific method”. There is an alignment in the literature that science refers to systematic knowledge. In fact, etymologically, the word “science” is derived from the Latin word Scientia meaning knowledge. The notion of science can be looked at from three perspectives: science as a social institution, science as a process, and science as a result (Novikov & Novikov, 2013)
1.1. Science as a Social Institution
As far as the first point is concerned, often, the first idea that comes into one’s mind when the word science is used has to do with scientific institutions such as universities, laboratories, and research centers. In this respect, science is looked at as a system or a community that provides a totality of scientific establishments and structures of scientific services. The system also incorporates scientific ethos, social certification, social values, organizational, political, and financial aspects of science (Allington & Swann, 2009).
1.2. Science as a Process
Secondly, how knowledge is uncovered and interpreted is also crucial in setting scientific knowledge apart from the ordinary one. In other words, the label science can be also employed to designate the process and the practices involved in obtaining knowledge. The whole aspects involved in finding out what we do not know systematically are discussed under the term “research methodology”. The latter is defined as a systematic and refined technique of thinking, employing specialized tools, instruments, and procedures to obtain a more adequate solution of a problem than would be possible under ordinary means. The whole procedure starts with a problem, data collection, critical analysis, finally reaching decisions based on the actual evidence. It evolves from a genuine desire to know rather than a desire to prove something (Kumar, 2011).
The gist behind adhering to meticulous and in-depth research methodology is to ensure the fulfillment of four criteria without which any branch of inquiry cannot be deemed as science: replicability, precision, falsifiability, and parsimony. All of these are interrelated; thus, it is hard to talk about one criterion without referring to others. For instance, replicability means that a researcher’s account for the method he/she utilized in research has to be accurate, comprehensive, and detailed. This will allow other researchers to independently replicate or repeat a scientific study and obtain similar, if not identical results. Therefore, if one is to be able to reproduce an experiment or study, the author of the original research has to provide precise measurements of the different concepts used.
The ability to reproduce the same variables and conditions of the original research allows other researchers to put the consistency of the work to the test. Thus, they will independently and impartially test preexisting theories. Of course, in case of any discrepancy, researchers can disprove theories. In this vein, Bhattacherjee (2012, p.5) sees “ theory must be stated in a way that it can be disproven. Theories that cannot be tested or falsified are not scientific theories and any such knowledge is not scientific knowledge. A theory that is specified in imprecise terms or whose concepts are not accurately measurable cannot be tested, and is therefore not scientific.”
The last criterion, parsimony, can simply be interpreted as simplicity, being efficient, and economical. Parsimony is a guiding principle that suggests that in the case of multiple solutions to a problem, the simplest should be preferred. A researcher should seek to find a solution that can be generalized better across a wide range of situations. Thus, parsimonious explanations are simple, precise, and easy to replicate as opposed to one that needs to be specifically tailored to the original situation at hand.
1.3. Science as a Result
A frequently asked question in academia is “ Which is more important: the process or the result?”. Often students when they set their mind on a topic or a problem, they try to think of the results, anticipating, and assessing whether their research would bring the desired conclusion or not. In this case, a student is considering the practicality of his /her research, trying to minimizing risks. While there is no question that practicality is rather an important criterion in any endeavor, focusing solely on an anticipated result would contradict research ethics. There is a high chance that a researcher would be biased either intentionally or unintentionally in the design phase if the end goals are considered as a priority (Allington & Swann, 2009).
Therefore, from an ethical standing point, the process is of paramount importance. Therefore, success in research is arriving at any conclusion which is a result of detailed methodology, high moral values, and accepted norms and regulations. After all, the knowledge obtained is going to be a mere reflection of the process. Subsequently, scientific knowledge has to be, objective, verifiable, ethical, systematically explored, reliable, precise, and abstract. There is nothing called failure in scientific research if the procedures are carefully carried out and the above criteria are met.
1.4. Characteristics of Science
In the discussion about science as a process, four concepts were divulged: replicability, precision, falsifiability, and parsimony. Often the latter are further divided into key characteristics that can vary according to the field of research. In general, whether the talk is about science or the quality of research, six characteristics need to be found: objectivity, verifiability, systematic exploration, precision and accuracy, reliability, and ethicality (Berg, 2001).
1.4.1. Objectivity
The concept of objectivity stands as the lack of favoritism toward one side or another. That means that facts have to be accepted as they are without any biases, prior beliefs, or preferences. However, it is important to note that “objectivity” itself is a value, thus, it is opened to judgment and interpretation. In this regard, the degree of “objectivity” is measured by minding all processes of obtaining knowledge from claims, methods, and finally results.
1.4.2. Verifiability
Scientific knowledge is based on concrete factual observation. The latter has to be checkable, confirmable, demonstrable, empirical, and provable. While these concepts can be used interchangeably, each one stands for the intended meaning. First, all the processes in research to obtain data have to be examined and checked. Furthermore, scientific knowledge should be capable of being tested either by verification or falsification by experiment or observation. Yet, for knowledge to be verifiable, it has to be clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved, thus, demonstrable. Logical matters fall under empirical knowledge which can be sensed. Provable means there should be uniform proofs for all the claims.
1.4.3. Systematic Research
Scientific knowledge needs to be obtained by systematic research adhering to specific methods and sequential procedures. The latter is translated into steps of research methodology: identifying the problem, reviewing the literature, clarification of the problem, defining concepts and terms, defining the population, developing methods to collect data, collecting data, and analyzing data.
1.4.4. Precision and Accuracy
Accuracy and precision are two attributes that need to be associated with scientific knowledge and research. Accuracy describes the difference between the measurement and the true value of the object of study. On the other hand, the term precision designates the degree to which several measurements of the same object show the same or similar results.
1.4.5. Reliability
The primary aim of researchers is to reproduce knowledge that is applicable outside the research setting with implications that go beyond the group that has participated in the research. While the focus in precision is on reproducibility, the emphasis is laid on stability when it comes to reliability. The talk about reliability does not only covers the result but extends to the internal reliability of the data collection instruments. Therefore, in any research paper, it is of paramount importance to have a detailed report on the accuracy, precision, and validity of the measurement tools deployed. Having such documentation increases the value of research and works as evidence for practice (Crano & Brewer, 2002).
1.4.6. Ethicality
The reliance on extensive, comprehensive, and reliable reports in research makes adhering to a set of moral obligations that define right and wrong in practices and decisions rather imperative. Hence, scientific ethics means honesty and integrity are expected at all levels of research from data collection to discussion and publication. (Carpi & Egger, 2009) list seven standards that need to be met:
1- Honesty in reporting of scientific data;
2- Careful transcription and analysis of scientific results to avoid error;
3- Independent analysis and interpretation of results that are based on data and not on the influence of external sources;
4- Open sharing of methods, data, and interpretations through publication and presentation;
5- Sufficient validation of results through replication and collaboration with peers;
6- Proper crediting of sources of information, data, and ideas;
7- Moral obligations to society in general, and, in some disciplines, responsibility in weighing the rights of human and animal subjects.
1.5. Science vs Pseudoscience
A heated debate in academia is about the fields that should be deemed scientific and the ones that are not. The issue starts with the distinction between physical or natural science and social one. The simplest version some try to adopt is that every field of research that falls under natural science is scientific, thus, rendering those disciplines labeled as social, unscientific. Indeed, it is rather difficult to talk about three important characteristics of science: precision, accuracy, and reliability with social sciences even though they adhere to rigorous research methodology.
Hence, the term “pseudoscience” is advanced. An epistemic stance that considers social sciences a subclass of scientific theories. (Neuman, 2014) even talks about the term “Junk science” which denotes “A public relations term used to criticize scientific research even if it is conducted properly that produces findings that an advocacy group opposes even adhering to scientific methods does not grant some”
In the midst of this intense debate that is still standing, it is rather necessary to opt for a rather substitute and a productive view on how we should look at social sciences. In this regard, (Laugksch, 2000) sees that the answer is in the idea of “ Scientific literacy” which is “ is the capacity to understand scientific knowledge; apply scientific concepts, principles, and theories; use scientific processes to solve problems and make decisions; and interact in a way that reflects core scientific values”. Moreover, a researcher needs to acquire “quantitative literacy, or numeracy”. That is the ability to perceive how data are collected and measurements are displayed employing graphs, diagrams, and tables.
1.6. References
Allington, D., & Swann, J. (2009). Researching literary reading as social practice. Language and Literature, 18(3), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947009105850
Bayley, R., & Lucas, C. (2007). Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, methods, and applications. Cambridge University Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=321456
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed). Allyn and Bacon.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices.
Borzillo, S. (2007). Communities of practice to actively manage best practices (1. Aufl). Dt. Univ.-Verl.
Carpi, A., & Egger, A. (2009). The Culture of Science:Scientific Ethics. Visionlearning, POS-2(5).
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford University Press.
Crano, W. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Principles and methods of social research (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed). SAGE Publications.
Drake, P., & Heath, L. (2011). Practitioner research at doctoral level: Developing coherent research methodologies. Routledge.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital. HarperBusiness,.
Kadushin, C., Hecht, S., Sasson, T., & Saxe, L. (2008). Triangulation and Mixed Methods Designs: Practicing What We Preach in the Evaluation of an Israel Experience Educational Program. Field Methods, 20(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X07307426
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods & techniques. New Age International (P) Ltd. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=431524
Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd ed). SAGE.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
Litosseliti, L. (Ed.). (2010). Research methods in linguistics. Continuum.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2010). Second language research: Methodology and design (Repr). Routledge.
Nagel, J. (2014). Knowledge: A very short introduction (First edition). Oxford University Press.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7. ed., Pearson new internat. ed). Pearson.
Novikov, A. M., & Novikov, D. A. (2013). Research methodology from philosophy of science to research design. CRC Press. http://0-marc.crcnetbase.com.fama.us.es/isbn/9780203764725
Polanyi, M. (1962). Tacit knowing. Philosophy Today, 6(4), 239–262.
Powers, G. T., Meenaghan, T. M., & Toomey, B. G. (1985). Practice focused research: Integrating human service practice and research. Prentice Hall.
Singh, Y. K. (2006). Fundamental of research methodology and statistics. New Age International Pvt. Ltd., Publishers.
Tavakoli, H. (2013). A dictionary of research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. Rahnamā.
Thomas, B. (2015). Problem Formulation in Social Work Research: Issues and Concerns. International Journal of Social and Economic Research, 5(4), 65. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-6270.2015.00055.0
1.7. Quiz
1- According to you which one is important: the process or the result ?