Jur Hilkens
Maastricht University
2016/2017
Introduction, Acquiring Knowledge, and the Scientific
Method (Gravetter and Forzano – Chapter 1)
1 – INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.1 – Why take a research methods course?
- Research methods is a required course, because professionals in the behavioral sciences rely on
methods of science to gather and interpret information
- Scientific research is based on gathering evidence from careful, systematic, and objective
observations
-
Pseudoscience = a set of ideas, often presented as science, but actually based on nonscientific
observations. Typically founded on faith, belief or untested metaphysical claims. Unsupported
by empirical evidence (e.g. astrology)
1.2 – Other reasons for taking a research methods course
- Conducting a study: to keep up to date in your profession, to read and understand the most
recent research publications
- Reading and Evaluating other people’s studies: research methodology will also help you
critically evaluate the research presented in journal articles. Determine to what extent the
evidence supports the conclusions. Therefore, a research methods course will help you evaluate
the research of others
- Understanding brief descriptions of studies: a research methods course will help you fill in
the gaps in typical descriptions of studies
- Research studies in your daily life: a research methods course will help you make educated
decisions about the research claims you encounter in everyday life
- Information-Based decision making: to help you make decisions in your own everyday life
-
Research Methods is all about: how to collect and interpret the information that you need to
make the best possible decisions
-
Scientific method = procedure for acquiring knowledge and answering questions, it is a logical
and objective method for obtaining information and making decisions based on information
2 – METHODS OF KNOWING AND ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE
-
Methods of acquiring knowledge = ways in which a person can know thing or discover
answers to questions
Five nonscientific approaches:
2.1 – (1) - The method of tenacity
-
Method of tenacity = information is accepted as true because it has always been believed or
because superstition supports it (e.g. breaking a mirror will result in 7 years’ bad luck)
Problem: the information acquired might not be accurate
A belief that is widely accepted only on the basis of tenacity is very difficult to change
1
Jur Hilkens
Maastricht University
2016/2017
2.2 – (2) - The method of intuition
-
Method of intuition = information is accepted on the basis of a hunch or “gut feeling”, when it
“feels right”
Problem: it has no mechanism for separating accurate from inaccurate knowledge
2.3 – (3) - The method of authority
-
-
-
Method of authority = a person relies on information or answers from an expert in the subject
area
Problems:
(1) expertise can be generalized to include the question we are asking.
(2) authorities can be biased in favor a particular point of view or orientation
(3) the answers obtained from an expert could represent subjective, personal
opinion rather than true expert knowledge
(4) people often accept an expert’s statement without question. As a result, false
information is sometimes taken as the truth
(5) not all “experts” are experts
Method of faith = a variant of the method of authority in which people have unquestioning trust
in the authority figure and, therefore, accept information from the authority without doubt or
challenge (e.g. young children, religions)
Problem: no mechanism to test the accuracy of the information, it accept another’s view of the
truth without verification
--> There are ways to increase confidence in the information you obtain the method of authority:
(1) evaluate the source of the information. Is the authority really an expert, and is it
within his area of expertise? Is the information an objective fact or is it simply a
subjective opinion?
(2) evaluate the information itself. Does the information seem reasonable?
(3) if two independent authorities provide the same answer, it is more reasonable that
the answer is correct
2.4 – (4) - The rational method
-
-
The rational method (rationalism) = seeks answers by the use of logical reasoning
In logical reasoning, premise statements = describe facts or assumptions that are presumed to
be true
Argument = a set of premise statements that are logically combined to yield a conclusion
--> begin with a set of known facts or assumptions and use logic to reach a conclusion or get an
answer to a question
Problems:
(1) if any basic assumption or premise is incorrect, then we cannot have any
confidence in the truth of the logical conclusion
(2) a logical conclusion is only valid for the specific situation described by the
premise statements, when it is incomplete or do not totally represent the realworld situation, then the conclusion might not be accurate
(3) people are not particularly good at logical reasoning
2
Jur Hilkens
Maastricht University
2016/2017
2.5 – (5) - The empirical method
-
Empirical method (empiricism) = uses observation or direct sensory experience to obtain
knowledge (personal experience)
Problem:
(1) tempting to place great confidence in our own observations, it is fairly
common for people to misperceive or misinterpret the world around them
(2) time consuming
EXAMPLE: You want to know the weight of one of your classmates
Empirical method --> let her step on a scale
Method of authority --> ask how much she weighs
Rational method --> compare her physical size to your own and calculate an estimated weight
relative to how much you weigh
2.6 – Summary
3
Jur Hilkens
Maastricht University
2016/2017
3 – THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
-
The scientific method = an approach to acquiring knowledge that involves formulating specific
questions and then systematically finding answers. It as a carefully developed system for asking
and answering questions so that the answers we discover are as accurate as possible
--> THE STEPS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD <-3.1 – STEP 1: Observe behavior or other phenomena
-
Simply observe the world around you until some behavior or event catches your attention
In this stage, people commonly tend to generalize beyond the actual observations
Induction or inductive reasoning = using a relatively small set of specific observations as the
basis for forming a general statement about a larger set of possible observations (the process of
generalization)
3.2 – STEP 2: Form a tentative answer or explanation (a hypothesis)
-
-
This step begins usually by identifying other factors or variables that are associated with your
observation
Variables = characteristics or conditions that change or have different values for different
individuals
Variables can be identified based on common sense or your background research in the library
or on the internet (step 1)
Next, choose the explanation that you consider the most plausible or simply pick the on that you
find most interesting
Now you have a hypothesis, a possible explanation for your observation
Hypothesis = a statement that describes or explains a relationship between or among variables.
It is not a final answer but rather a proposal to be tested and evaluated
3.3 – STEP 3: Use your hypothesis to generate a testable prediction
-
-
This step usually involves taking the hypothesis and applying it to a specific, observable, realworld situation
A single hypothesis can lead to several different predictions, and that each prediction refers to
a specific situation or an event that can be observed and measured
Research hypothesis = a specific, testable prediction that is derived from a hypothesis. It
always refers to a specific situation or an event that can be directly observed
Deduction or deductive reasoning = uses a general statement as basis for reaching a conclusion
about specific examples. We use our hypothesis as a universal premise statement and then
determine the conclusions that must logically follow if the hypothesis is true
--> Induction is the exact opposite of this process
Predictions generated from a hypothesis must be testable. It must be possible to demonstrate
that the predictions is either correct or incorrect by direct observation
4
Jur Hilkens
Maastricht University
2016/2017
3.4 – STEP 4: Evaluate the prediction by making systematic, planned observations
-
This step is to evaluate the prediction using direct observation. It is the actual “research” or
“data collection” phase of the scientific method
Goal: to provide a fair and unbiased test of the research hypothesis by observing whether the
prediction is correct
The research study is an empirical test of the research hypothesis\
3.5 – STEP 5: Use the observations to support, refute, or refine the original hypothesis
-
-
The final step of the process, compare the actual observations with the predictions that were
made from the hypothesis
Lack of agreement indicates that the original hypothesis was wrong or that the hypothesis was
used incorrectly, producing faulty predictions --> go back to step 2, forming a new hypothesis
The scientific method continues the same series of steps over and over again.
Observations --> hypothesis --> more observations --> another hypothesis --> and so on..
-
This method is not a linear process, but rather is a circular process or spiral, that repeats over
and over, moving higher with each cycle as new knowledge is gained
5
Jur Hilkens
Maastricht University
2016/2017
3.6 – Other elements of the scientific method
-
Three important principles of the scientific method: (1) it is empirical, (2) it is public, and (3)
it is objective

-
(1) Science is empirical
We mean that answers are obtained by making observations
An answer is not scientifically accepted until it has been empirically demonstrated

-
(2) Science is public
We mean that the scientific method makes observations available for evaluation by others,
especially other scientist
Other should be able to replicate the observations for themselves
Replication or repetition of observation = allows verification of the findings

-
(3) Science is objective
The observations are structured so that the researcher’s biases and beliefs do not influence the
outcome of the study
Bias comes from belief in a particular theory
6
Jur Hilkens
Maastricht University
2016/2017
4 – THE RESEARCH PROCESS
4.1 – STEP 1: Find a research idea: select a topic and find a hypothesis
-
Involves two parts: (1) selecting a general topic area and (2) reviewing the literature in that area
to find a specific research question or hypothesis
General topic area is only a starting point that can evolve into a specific research question. Your
final question or research hypothesis will develop as your read through the research literature.
After studying the literature you will be ready to identify your own research question
-
The hypothesis identifies the specific variables and their relationship, it forms the foundation
for the future research study
-
Four elements that are considered to be important characteristics of a good research hypothesis:

-
(1) Logical
A good hypothesis is usually found in established theories or developed from the results of
previous research
It should be the logical conclusion of a logical argument

-
(2) Testable
It must be possible to observe and measure all the variables involved
The hypothesis must involve real situations, real events, and real individuals (it cannot contain
imaginary events or hypothetical situations

-
(3) Refutable
It must be possible to obtain research results that are contrary to the prediction
Refutable hypothesis = falsifiable hypothesis (critical component of the research process)
Non-refutable hypothesis is inappropriate for the scientific method
Testable hypothesis = one for which all of the variables, events, and individuals are real, and
can be defined and observed
Refutable hypothesis = a hypothesis that can be demonstrate to be false, the hypothesis allows
the potential for the outcome to be different from the prediction
-

-
(4) Positive
It must make a positive statement about the existence of something, usually the existence of a
relationship, the existence of a difference or the existence of a treatment effect
The basic of nature of science is to assume that something does not exist until there is enough
evidence to demonstrate that it actually does exist
4.2 – STEP 2: Determine how you will define and measure your variables
-
The variables identified in the research hypothesis must be defined in a manner that makes it
possible to measure them by some form of empirical observation
With identifying our variables so they can be observed and measured, we are transforming the
hypothesis into a specific, well-defined prediction that can be tested by making empirical
observations
7
Jur Hilkens
Maastricht University
2016/2017
4.3 – STEP 3: Identify the participants or subjects for the study
-
A part of making a specific prediction is to decide exactly what individuals participate in the
research study
Participants = the individuals who take part in research studies that are human
Subjects = the individuals who take part in research studies that are nonhuman
Specific prediction = research hypothesis
The variables can be defined and measured several different ways for different groups of
individuals
4.4 – STEP 4: Select a research strategy
-
The choice of a research strategy is usually determined by one of two factors:


(1) The type of question asked
(2) Ethics and other constraints
4.5 – STEP 5: Select a research design
-
Involves making decisions about the specific methods and procedures you will use to conduct
the research study
4.6 – STEP 6: Conduct the study
-
Decide how to, where to, etc. collect the data
4.7 – STEP 7: Evaluate the data
-
Examine and evaluate the data with the use of, for example, various statistical methods
4.8 – STEP 8: Report the results
-
Two reasons to report research results are:

(1) The results become parts of the general knowledge base that other people can use to answer
questions or to generate new research ideas
(2) The research procedure can be replicated or refuted by other researchers

4.9 – STEP 9: Refine or reformulate your research idea
-
Scientific method always produces tentative answers or tentative explanations (there are no final
answers)
Results that support a hypothesis lead to new question by one of the following two routes:

-
(1) Test the boundaries of the result:
The goal is to determine whether your result extends into other areas

(2) Refine the original research question
8
Jur Hilkens
Maastricht University
2016/2017
9