research methology

¶ … scientific approach to knowledge is generally an expansion on the common-sense everyday approach, by which individuals seek the truth. For example, both the scientific and the everyday approaches to knowledge entail successive and related stages of observation, reporting, concepts, instruments, measurement, and hypotheses. The scientific method is usually far more formal and rigid than the general, everyday approach to knowledge because of the necessary rigors of the sciences.

If an ordinary individual sees a flower she has never before seen, she will probably approach it for a closer look. A scientist would also approach the flower to examine it. Next, both scientist and layperson use as many senses as possible to observe the flower. Observation means not just watching with the eyes, but also listening, smelling, touching, and being aware of the surrounding environment. In the everyday approach, the person might ignore that which the scientist would observe, such as any anomalies in the petal formation.

The process of observation for a scientist is a far different process than for a layperson. For example, if a psychologist sets out to observe a child he or she will use different criteria and will analyze the child's behavior with fewer biases and assumptions than the layperson. The everyday approach to behavioral observation includes biases, assumptions, and prejudices, many of which might be unconscious. It is the job of the scientist to overcome such biases. Also, the social scientist will probably absorb and record far more details of the child's behavior. A scientific approach also entails filtering out some of the behaviors that might be extraneous for the purposes of research.

The scientific approach to reporting includes systematic written testimony, according to the established rules of grammar, field jargon, and formatting appropriate to the field. Scientific reporting is objective, whereas everyday reporting can be subjective. Reporting means communicating with other scientists about what has been observed, in the hopes and expectation that other scientists will want to replicate the study and observe the same object or behavior. An everyday approach to reporting is less formal. For instance, a parent observing his or her child might report on a certain behavior to the spouse or to a friend, but would probably not write an article in a journal. Scientists also address concepts in different ways than laypeople do: scientists cannot help but view all things within their chosen field in light of the concepts they have learned or hope to learn. Laypeople occasionally perceive phenomenon in light of academic concepts, but only casually, as a means to better understand what they observe.

The instruments that scientists use are far more technical than the instruments used by laypeople. For example, a scientist might rely on dangerous chemicals to analyze a food substance whereas a layperson might simply smell food to determine if it has gone sour. Instruments are more integral to the scientific process than they are to everyday acquisitions of knowledge. By extension, measurement has more meaning for scientists than it does for laypeople. Measuring is integral to the scientific method because only through measurements can a scientist replicate an experiment and compile accurate data. Finally, while both scientists and laypeople form hypotheses based on what they observe, the process is far more formal and intensive in the scientific method. The scientific approach to knowledge depends on the creation, development, and testing of hypotheses, whereas the everyday approach is not dependent on hypotheses.

2. The difference between independent and dependent variables is central to the scientific method. In all scientific studies, dependent variables are the variables the scientist is attempting to measure, whereas independent variables are like constants that might impact the experiment. The dependent variable is dependent on the conditions and stipulations of the study. The independent variable is independent of the outcome of the experiment and therefore the scientist can control the independent variable. Independent and dependent variables are best understood through example: if a scientist wants to measure the physiological responses of children to violent vs. nonviolent video games, he or she would design a study in which heart rate and sweat were the dependent variables, and in which the type of video game was the independent variable.

3. Operational definitions are necessary in all scientific fields; their most significant advantage to the scientist is that they allow otherwise abstract concepts to be measured and therefore tested via the scientific method. However, especially in the field of psychology, operational definitions have been criticized. One of the ways the use of definitions is criticized is via intelligence tests. In order to make an abstract concept like intelligence measurable, social scientists administer tests. Such tests serve as a way to quantify intelligence, but in many cases the tests can be biased; they only measure a certain type of intelligence. Second, operational definitions tend to oversimplify the traits they attempt to measure. Using the same example, an IQ test oversimplifies the concept of intelligence to being mainly related to spatial relations.

4. Accuracy and precision are often, and erroneously, used interchangeably. If a scientific instrument is accurate, it is correctly calibrated to measure. Accuracy assumes that there an absolute value for measurement can exist. For example, if a person creates a hand-drawn ruler, it is unlikely that his or her markings will accurately reflect the true measurements of centimeters. Similarly, if a clock's battery is low, it will not be accurately telling time. Precision refers to an instrument's sensitivity. Using the same examples, a yard stick will be an imprecise tool to measure millimeters. A digital scale will generally be more precise than a non-digital one.

5. If a scientific measure or a scientific study is valid, then the scientist has ascribed to all rules of the scientific method and all rules of his or her specific field. For example, the scientist measured all variables accurately and provided for controls. A scientific measure is also valid when the scientist makes sure that extraneous variables are accounted for, ensuring that the measure actually reflects what it is supposed to reflect. For example, contamination of a chemical sample would render a measure invalid. In psychology, a study is valid if the scientist rules out extraneous influences that might impact the dependent variable. For instance, in a study measuring physiological responses in children toward watching video games, the scientist needs to make sure that something like the phone ringing didn't impact the child's physiological responses. If a study is valid, other scientists can draw on it and possibly create a new hypothesis based on the results.