Summary
Summary: Social Research, H2, H3, H4, H5, H8 & H9
- Course
- Institution
- Book
Summary of the Book: Social Research Approaches and Fundaments by Bruce C. Straits and Royce A. Singleton Jr.
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Seller
Follow
tomdenissen
Reviews received
Content preview
Hoofdstuk 2All scientific knowledge, regardless of the field of study, shares certain defining characteristics, the
first of which is the type of questions that may be addressed.
Scientific questions
Why questions are just a short hand for:
‘’what is the relationship between…. Or;
‘’Under what conditions….’’
If we can use these phrases It is a scientific question because we can ‘’observe’’.
Scientific questions are questions that can be answered by making observations that identify the
conditions under which curtain events occur. Still, to qualify as scientific knowledge, the answers to
such questions must take a particular form, a form that meets the requirements of descriptions,
explanation, prediction and understanding.
Knowledge as description
The first step in producing scientific knowledge is description. We must describe objects and events
before we can understand and explain the relationships among them.
Concepts are abstractions communicated by words or other signs that refer to common properties
among phenomena.
- The first rule about the scientific use of concepts is one word, one concept.
- The second rule about concepts is that there must be agreed-on ways of trying them to
tangible objects and events. This rule extends the first rule by stating that concepts must be
defined directly or indirectly in terms of precise, reliable observation.
- The third rule is about that concepts are judged by their usefulness. Once a concept has
outilived its usefulness or the explanation in which it is embedded has been superseded by a
better explanation, it is discarded.
Knowledge as explanation and prediction
Explanations are attempts to satisfy curiosity.
The empirical rules with which scientific explanations are built consists of abstract statements, or
propositions, that relate changes in one general class of events to changes in another class of events
under certain conditions.
Emperical generalations are propositions that are derived from observations or hypotheses when
they have been proposed but not tested.
To the extent that the propositions have been repeatedly verified and are widely accepted they may
become known as scientific laws.
To answer questions and explain generally explain empirical generalizations or laws, we use theories.
A scientific theory consists of a set of interconnected propositions that have the same form as laws
but are more general or abstract.
It is not about how a theory is presented, but it is about if it is logically consistent and empirically
testable.
Mostly one theory is judged superior to the extent that it: 1)involved the fewest number of
statements and assumptions, 2) explains the broadest range of phenomena, and 3) makes the most
accuracte predictions.
,Knowledge as understanding
In addition to making testable predictions, scientific laws and theories must provide a sense of
understanding.
This sense is gained by describing the causal process that connects events.
A theory often meets this criterion in explaining a law or empirical generalizations.
A law or hypothesis is thought to be scientifically meaningfull when it describes a causal relationship.
That is a relationship in which change in one event forces, produces, or brings about a change in
another.
Post hoc generelations give us a false sense of understanding.
Once we have an adequate theory that describes the causal process connecting events, we get not
only a better sense of understanding but also more accurate and more useful predictions.
Explanation in social science generally boils down to a search for causes.
Knowing when and how to infer causality is a prerequisite for most social research.
Tentative knowledge
Scientists never achieve complete understanding, nor do they assume acces to indubitable truths.
One reason is that every answer leads to new questions, and every new fact, law, or theory presents
new problems so that no matter what the present state of scientific knowledge, there is always more
to know.
In other words: at some point a scientific proposition is accepted because it describes or interprets a
recurring, observable event. But just because an event has occurred on several occasions, there is no
guarantee that it will continue to occur.
Science as process
The most characteristic feature of the scientific process is its cyclical nature.
At some point scientists are observers collecting data and recording facts; next, they try to describe
and explain what they see; then, they make predictions on the basis of their theories, which they
check against their observations again.
This chain of events is diagrammed in the figure below.
(Gebruik powerpoint figuur)
Where we begin this chain is arbitrary.
But at some point, theories generate predictions or hypotheses, hypotheses are checked against
data, the data produce generalizations, and the generalizations support, contradict, or suggest
modifications in the theory.
The development of theory is the goal of science.
Research supports this goal through systematic observation that generates the data from which
theories are inferred and tested.
Science is a process involving the continuous interaction of theory and research.
What characterized scientific inquiry is a commonly understood logic of justification and a set of
standards that all scientists follow in generating and assessing the evidence on which their theories
are based.
,Logical reasoning
Scientist are expected to follow the principles of logical reasoning.
When people reason, they make inferences; that is, they draw conclusions based on information or
evidence.
The two main types of logical reasoning are: inductive and deductive.
In deductive reasoning the conclusion is absolutely certain if the evidence is true.
In inductive reasoning the conclusion is uncertain even if the evidence is true because its content
goes beyond the evidence.
Examples:
Inductive: Tom, Marieke, Corin, who are union members, are democrats. Therefore all union
members are democrats.
Deductive: All union members are democrats. Tom belongs to the union. Therefore, Tom is a
democrat.
Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up process moving from data to empirical generalizations
theories.
Deductive reasoning is a top-down process moving from general principles to specific
observations or facts.
Unlike inductive inferences, which may vary in strength or probability, deductions are either valid or
invalid. A conclusion logically follows from a general proposition or it does not. A hypothesis is
logically consistent with the facts or it is not. Checking for deductive validity or sound logical
reasoning is an essential first step in evaluating hypotheses and theories. However, when a
hypothesis or theory is logically consistent with the facts, this does not mean that it is necessarily
true.
In science however, the verification of a hypothesis is really never complete. No matter how strong
the evidence, it is always possible for the evidence to be true and the hypothesis false. It is also
possible for the evidence itself to be in error. To avoid these possibilities, scientists must 1)
repeatedly conduct research to build up in a large and diversified ‘’body of confirming evidence, or to
find disconfirming evidence if there is any’’ and 2) take all steps necessary to ensure accurate,
unbiased evidence.
3 key principles in which scientists adhere in gathering and evaluating evidence: empiricism,
objectivity and control.
Empericism
Scientists limit themselves to problems and issues that can be resolved by making observations. This
means that scientific inquiry is based on empiricism. Empericism is a way of knowing or
understanding the world that relies directly or indirectly on what we experience through our senses;
sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. In other words; pieces of information or data are acceptable in
science only insofar as they can be observed or ‘’sensed’’ in some way under specifiable conditions
by people possessing the normal sensory apparatus, intelligence, and skills.
To say that science is based on empiricism, therefore, is to say that the only admissible evidence for
or against a scientific hypothesis or theory must be observable directly or indirectly, through some
tangible manifestation.
, To a scientist, observables are anything that can be related to the results of perceived
measurements.
Empiricism in science often takes the form of indirect observations, whereby instruments are
employed that aid and extend the scientist’s ability to observe.
Objectivity
Objectivity is rarely, if ever, possible.
Our observation- or more properly, our interpretation- of the world is inevitable distorted to some
extent by factors not under our conscious control. For this reason, scientists agree that objectivity, in
the sense of observation free from bias, is a practical impossibility.
A limited far more useful meaning to the term ‘’objective’’ is: it must be possible for two or more
independent observers working under the same conditions to agree that they are observing the
same thing or event. This is called: Intersubjective testability.
Because of the requirements of objectivity, scientists are supposed to describe their research in
detail, outlining their logic and methods of observation in such a way that other scientists may
evaluate and repeat the investigation. IN this way others can decide for themselves whether a
researcher’s subjectivity has distorted the conclusions.
Control
The influence of certain biases is unavoidable.
Scientists attempt to control for and minimize bias to maximize the trustworthiness of their
observations. The use of control procedures that rule out biases in the principal way in which
scientific inquiry differs from casual observation.
A good example is the place effect. People that are offered a sugar pill show the same results as
people that are given the real medicine.
It is important to control for such placebo effects.
We can do this by the use of ‘’double-blind investigations’’.
In a double-blind study, several doctors are asked to prescribe and administer the drug being tested
to their patients. The doctors receive the drug from the researcher in individual vials that are
identified by number and contain only enough of the drug for one patient. Half of the vials contain
the actual drug and half contain a placebo. Since neither doctors nor patients know which they are
receiving, their beliefs about the drug cannot influence its effectiveness. That is, any difference
observed between those receiving the drug and those receiving the placebo cannot be attributed to
either the doctors or the patient’s expectations about the drug.
Still, even if a double-blind procedure is used, there can be some problems of interpretation. The
most common is that people are different. They react different to various treatments and drugs, so
most medications are not 100% effective.
The idea of control is to employ procedures that effectively rule out all explanations except the one
in which the researcher is interested. In medical research this take the form of placebo groups and
double-blind techniques.
In social research the concept of control takes many forms.
Other control procedures in social research include: 1) using several independent observers, not only
to check for interobserver agreement (objectivity) but also to cancel out the personal biases of any
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller tomdenissen. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.90. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
60904 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now