The role of research statistics in psychology

¶ … Psychology

Research and the Scientific Method: A Concise Definition

Research as a term does not have an assigned definition. Indeed, different authors have in the past offered varying definitions of the same. In the opinion of Goddard and Melville (2004), research does not limit itself to information gathering. Research as the authors point out "is about answering unanswered questions or creating that which does not currently exist" (Goddard and Melville, 2004). In that regard, an individual who seeks to systematically gather new information in an attempt to find answers to specific questions is in one way or the other involved in research. On the other hand, when it comes to the scientific method, the same according to Jackson (as cited in Coon and Mitterer, 2010) can be defined as "a form of critical thinking based on careful collection of evidence, accurate description and measurement, precise definition, controlled observation, and repeatable results."

As Coon and Mitterer (2010) point out, the scientific method has a number of elements (six to be precise). The first element identified by the authors in this case is making observations. It is important to note that although formulation of the hypothesis is often thought to be the very first step of the scientific method, observation act as the basis of the hypothesis. The other steps of the scientific method identified by Coon and Mitterer (2010) include: problem definition, proposing a hypothesis, evidence gathering, theory building and finally, publishing of the results. Problem definition has largely got to do with expressing an issue of interest in hypothetical terms while at the same time formulating operational definitions. A hypothesis according to Coon and Mitterer (2010) is essentially "a tentative statement about, or explanation of, an event or relationship." Proposing a hypothesis as one of the elements of scientific method therefore involves floating an explanation or tentative statement about the issue at hand. The fourth element, i.e. evidence gathering, has got to do with the collection of all the evidence that would come in handy in seeking a solution to the problem. After gathering evidence, the step that follows is theory building. Coon and Mitterer (2010) point out that a theory should be seen as a map of knowledge. Indeed, in the words of Stanovich (as cited in Coon and Mitterer, 2010), "without theories of forgetting, personality, stress, mental illness, and the like, psychologists would drown in a sea of disconnected facts." The last element in this case is the communication of the results. The relevance of publishing results cannot be overstated. According to Coon and Mitterer (2010), publishing results allows other researchers to go through the said results. This could either act as a basis for future research or help in the identification of critical faults in the study.

An Analysis of the Characteristics of Primary and Secondary Data

Sources of information can be categorized into two; that is, primary data and secondary data. Primary data in the words of Brain and Mukherji (2005) is "data gathered first hand, by the researcher." On the other hand, secondary data as the authors further point out is "data derived from what others have collected, so it is second hand, such as percentages from a national census" (Brain and Mukherji, 2005). In that regard, while primary data includes all the data a researcher or investigator collects for the first time, secondary data is all that data already in existence. In seeking to further understand the two sources of information, it would be prudent to highlight the differences as well as similarities that exist between them. In regard to the main differences between the two, it can be noted that while primary data can be regarded original as it is collected by the researcher for the first time, secondary data is not original as it is already in existence. Secondly, collecting primary data could be more demanding in terms of time, effort, and monetary costs. The collection of secondary data on the other hand is less costly as the desired data already exists, i.e. It does not have to be gathered from scratch as is the case with primary data. Lastly, it is also important to note that primary data is better suited for the objective of the research undertaking than secondary data. This is largely because unlike the former source of information, the already existing secondary data best suits that purpose for which it was originally collected. However, regardless of the differences existing between the two sources of information, there are a number of similarities that do exist between them. For instance, both sources of information are regarded critical when it comes to research investigation. Further, both sources of data have limitations.