Research Methodology Summary (J. Vennix)
Chapter 1: The origins of science
Hard/natural sciences: physics, chemistry, astronomy, engineering, etc. (beta-sciences)
Social sciences: political science, economics, sociology​
Behavioural sciences: philosophy, languages, history.
Management science: the discipline of using scientific research-based principles, strategies and other analytical
methods, such as mathematical management decisions.
Empirical research: research that relies on sensory perception such as: observation, to generate knowledge on
reasoning. (more speculative).
1.1 Learning and knowing in everyday life and in science
Selective perception: the unconscious process by which people screen, select, and notice objects in their
environment. During this process, information tends to be selectively perceived in ways that align with existing
attitudes, beliefs, and goals.
Confirmation bias: the selective collection of evidence that supports one’s point of view, discarding and
scrutinising information which is contrary to our beliefs.
Rationalising/explaining things away: gods were supposed to save us, didn’t, it was a test.
Self-fulfilling prophecy: situation in which my expectation leads me to behave in such a way that my
expectation becomes reality. (expecting a well-dressed person to tip better than others).
Methodology: learning how to learn, the question of how to best acquire knowledge.
Anarchic-democracy: there is no one person who is the arbiter of truth and the best way (method) to get at the
truth. It is democratic in the sense that everybody can freely voice their opinion, whatever that opinion is as long
as it is based on argument and/or evidence.
A-priori: priori thinking refers to reasoning without certain phenomena ‘before’ or ‘without’ using sensory
perception as the basis of knowledge. (Plato)
Opinion: knowledge obtained through the senses (Plato)​
Knowledge: knowledge obtained through contemplation and pure reasoning (Plato)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 2: The scientific method
2 types of knowledge:
-​ Descriptive knowledge: ‘What is the case’ → something is the case
-​ Explanatory knowledge: ‘Why is this the case?’ → knowing something is the case
3 strategies with which knowledge can be generated:
-​ Deduction
-​ Induction
-​ Abduction
2.1 Deduction, induction and abduction
Deduction → valid argument but does not mean it’s true.
A deductive argument works from the universal (the general) towards the individual (or the specific)​
(General → Specific)
Deduction is also quantitative, as it has no new knowledge.
Deduction consists of two premises (P) and one conclusion (C).
1
Axiomatic - Deductive science: starts from Axioms: not needing certain proof to be accepted as true.
I will build this for you to support what you need. → How do I know what you will build to support what I need? →
You will have to find out ‘after’ it is proven and accepted to be true. Proof is deducted from proof and deducted
from proof.
Example deduction
●​ All humans are mortal (Premise 1 - general)​ ​
●​ X is human (Premise 2 - structured/specific = X)​
●​ X is mortal (C)
●​
●​
●​
All dogs have 5 legs ​
X is a dog
X has 5 legs
​
​
(Human = subject, mortal = predicate)
(X = subject, mortal = predicate)
​
If both premises (P) are right, then the conclusion (C) must be right too. ​
This, however, is not always the case as we can observe from reality that dogs do not have 5 legs.
Modus Ponens​
(mode that affirms) → whatever substitutes for p and q, the argument will always be valid.
●​ If p then q; (p→q)​​
​
​
When it rains, the streets get wet.
●​ If p holds; (p)​
​
​
​
It's raining.
●​ Therefore q (​
​
​
​
The streets get wet.
Invalid Reasoning​
(denying the antecedent) - fallacious argument​
P does not hold
●​ If p then q;​
​
​
​
●​ Not p;​ ​
​
​
​
●​ Therefore not q. ​ ​
​
​
When it rains, the streets get wet.
It’s not raining.
Streets might be wet, regardless.
Affirming the consequent​
(p is considered to be a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient one).
●​ If p then q;​
​
​
​
When it rains, the streets get wet.
●​ Not q;​ ​
​
​
​
The streets are not wet.
●​ Therefore p.​
​
​
​
Doesn’t mean it’s not raining somewhere. ​
​
​
Modus Tollens
(mode that denies) → whatever we substitute for p and q, the argument will always be valid.
●​ If p then q; (p → q)​
​
​
When it rains, the streets get wet.
●​ Not q; (¬q)​
​
​
​
The streets are not wet.
●​ Therefore, not p (¬p)​
​
​
It is not raining.
●​
●​
●​
If p then q​
​
​
Not q​ ​
​
​
Not p​ ​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
All top managers earn an above-average salary​
​
(p)​
​
​
(q)
Jan does not earn an above-average salary​
​
​
​
(not q)
Jan is not a top manager.​
​
(thus not p)
●​
If highways are safe, no accidents occur​
(p)​ ​
​
(q)
●​ The highways are not safe​
​
(not p)
●​ Accidents occur​
​
(not q)
INVALID ARGUMENT: because highways are not the only antecedents. It is about the ‘safety of
highways’, not about highways not being safe.
2
Bounded rationality: humans can only process a limited amount of information, which makes full rationality
virtually impossible (humans can’t always act fully rational).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Induction
A form of argument (inductive logic) and a way of conducting science (inductive science).
Specific → General (new knowledge)​
Observing empirical phenomena to a general statement. → From seeing all these cars, I know they all have four
wheels.
Inductive Logic
2 types of induction: Complete and Incomplete
Complete induction:
●​ All x have been studied
●​ All studied x have characteristic y
●​ Conclusion: all x have characteristic y
Incomplete induction:
●​ I have seen a number of trees
●​ All those trees have green leaves
●​ Conclusion: all trees have green leaves
These cases can be untrue, depending on what has been studied or observed.
Induction problem: from a limited number of observations, a universal statement can never be made.
Inductive strategy of knowledge acquisition is:
a)​ All facts are observed and recorded without selection or guesses as to their relative importance.
b)​ These facts analysed, compared and classified, without using hypotheses.
c)​ From this analysis, generalisations are inductively drawn as to the relations between them.
d)​ These generalisations are subjected to further testing.
Inductive Science
Relies on observations of empirical phenomena. While observing, it tries to find patterns or regularities and
develop a theory.
3 Induction problems
1.​ Full induction: all x have been examined, thus we already know the conclusion.​
Incomplete induction: not all x have been examined, thus we are now generalising.
2.​ The frank/unprejudiced observation: human observation is influenced in all sorts of (unconscious) ways.
(all kinds of opinions that one may hold, but also simply by the fact that careful observation is really
difficult).
3.​ The misunderstanding that through induction hypotheses to explain the phenomena will more or less
automatically surface.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abduction
New knowledge. Creating a hypothesis (conjecture) which can explain an empirical phenomenon. ​
When looking at an economy which does not fall apart, even though they don’t use tradition or totalitarian
approaches, you wonder why. You observe what is happening and you set an hypothesis (the law of supply and
demand) and assume that that is why an economy does not disintegrate when people decide to work for
themselves. Because supply and demand compliments each other and balances one another out. When there is
less supply, prices go up (as it is scarce but wanted), with more supply prices go down as a product can be found
anywhere..
3
Groupthink: a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group,
when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of
action. (the opposite of individual thinking).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Context of discovery: the situation in which ideas and hypotheses are generated (abduction).
Context of justification: the situation in which ideas, hypotheses, theories are tested against logic and/or
empirical evidence.
Serendipity: being fortunate to make an unexpected discovery / while seeking one thing (without anyone asking
you to) you find another (which, unknowing, everyone was awaiting), or while seeking something everyone
wanted, you discover that the true object of collective desire lay, hidden, elsewhere.
One researcher was researching something which had unfortunately created mould. Instead of throwing away his
research, he decided to investigate the mould, finding out that it created a bacteria-free space. This then was
turned into penicillin, an antibiotic.
5 core concepts in science
1.​ Model
2.​ Law
3.​ Experiment
4.​ Hypothesis
5.​ Theory
Model: a (simplified) representation of a certain phenomenon. (map of territory, model of a town, model of the
universe, etc). All models are visible except for the mental model.
Types of models
Law​
Normative concept of law: laws that prescribe what should and what should not be done (god or legal system).
Establishing concept of law: an empirical concept of law based on observation one establishes a certain pattern
or regularity in empirical data.
The concept of law requires something more than just a regularity (all ravens are black, I go for a walk every day
at 4). It could for example include an algorithm to become a concept of law.
Archimedes’ principle (law): an empirical regularity in the form of a relationship between two quantities.
Experiment: an artificial research setting, created for the purpose of testing hypotheses.
This does not mean that you don’t observe. You observe carefully what the result of an experiment is. You
observe the result of a situation which is deliberately created to serve a purpose.
Hypothesis: A working assumption that can explain the observed phenomena.
Hypothesis as a consequence of a theory: A hypothesis which can be directly tested against empirical reality.
A hypothesis/conjecture can be rejected, but it can also be adapted and elaborated and tested again.
Cognitive dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting
beliefs, values, or attitudes.
4
Theory
Facts and statements ordered in a logical, consistent whole. (contemplation rather than action).
A ‘thought construction’ which attempts to explain a (large) number of empirical regularities by postulating certain
mechanisms, which themselves are not observable.
●​
Postulate = suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning,
discussion, or belief.
Most theories start as hypotheses in the sense of conjectures about what could be an explanation of the
observed facts. They may develop into theories if they survive empirical testing, either experimentally or
non-experimentally.
When a hypothesis has been tested in a variety of circumstances and stood these empirical tests, you can
consider it to be a theory rather than just a hypothesis (conjecture).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Antecedent conditions of groupthink
A)​ Group cohesion
B)​ Organisational structural faults​
1. Insulation of the group​
2. Lack of impartial leadership​
3. Lack of methodical procedure group norms​
4. Homogeneity of the group
C)​ Situational factors​
1. High stress from external threats​
2. Temporary low self-esteem
D)​ Overestimation of the group​
1. Illusion of invulnerability​
2. Belief in group’s inherent morality
E)​ Close mindedness​
1. Collective rationalisation​
2. Stereotypes of out-groups
F)​ Pressure towards uniformity​
1. Self-censorship​
2. Illusion of unanimity​
3. Direct pressure on dissenters​
4. Self-appointed mind guards
Symptoms of groupthink
1.​ Incomplete survey of alternatives
2.​ Incomplete survey of objectives
3.​ Failure to examine risks
4.​ Failure to reappraise rejected alternatives
5.​ Poor information search
6.​ Selective bias in processing information
7.​ Failure to work ou a contingency plan
Symptoms of defective decision-making
Stress → concurrence seeking behaviour (avoiding conflict) → self-censorship → failure to examine risks.
This is a causal effect but how would you know that these above mentioned conditions and symptoms are
causal? (one leads to another).
Example: only in situations in which there is a highly cohesive group, will stress give rise to symptoms of
groupthink. The antecedent being ‘highly cohesive groups’.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Paradigm: a perspective on what constitutes a legitimate way of conducting philosophy and science, which
includes theories, methodologies but also deeper assumptions about how to acquire valid knowledge.
5
Scientific method: first you have to observe a pattern (induction), next you have to come up with a hypothesis,
which can explain the phenomenon (abduction). Then you have to test these hypotheses systematically, one by
one. Then you derive reasoning from the test implications from the hypotheses (deductive reasoning).
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 3: A dominant paradigm
Demarcation: what kind of statements/propositions should an empirical science engage with?
Logical positivism​
(Induction & verification)
​
Positivists reject metaphysical statements, which are statements that are beyond that which can be observed in
empirical reality, and it is closely linked to what is known in philosophy as ontology (on being/what is).
Positivists believe that one should stick to what is positively given: that which can be established unequivocally
by perception with the senses. The principle of verification plays an important role, where scientific statements
must be verifiable by means of empirical observation.
Demarcation criterion: a criterion with which one could make a distinction between scientific and non-scientific
statements (focussed on by the group ‘Wiener Kreis - Vienna Circle’ - a group of philosophers, mathematicians
and physicists who met regularly and were concerned with the foundations of the sciences and epistemology.)
(epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the
distinction between justified belief and opinion.)
​
Wiener Kreis believed that a statement could be considered scientific only if it could be verified empirically.
Synthetic statements: statements with an empirical claim (logical positivism).​
Truth depends on observation​
Also known as ‘a-posteriori’ (un)true.
​
Example:​
The ball is red. (only considered true if observed to be red).
Analytical statements: statements without an empirical claim. ​
Truth is independent of empirical observations/facts. Truth is based on a logical structure.
(mathematics and logic use these types of statements).
Also known as ‘a-priori’ (un)true. ​
Examples:​
A triangle has 3 sides.
​
​
One who is not married, is unmarried.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Critical rationalism
​
Karl Popper had points of criticism on ‘logical positivism’.
●​ The principle of verification
●​ We can never acquire certain, universal knowledge via the inductive method (because through
induction, truth can’t be established because of the induction problem: from a limited number of
observations, a universal statement can never be made.)
Example criticism inductive method in logical positivism.
●​ All trees have green leaves
●​ The object is a tree
Obviously, when looking at the trees, you can say the objects are trees. However, not only trees have green
leaves and this can’t be instantly verified by means of empirical observation. This shows the usage of the
inductive method problem.
6
According to Popper, science needs to start with points of view and theoretical notions. From these theoretical
notions we have to logically derive conclusions (predictions, test implications), which are tested against empirical
evidence.
According to Popper, if the outcome of a test is positive, the theory can only be preliminarily accepted, because
there could arise a situation in the future where the theory could be falsified by the test (induction problem).
Corroborated theory: as long as a theory has not been rejected, nor replaced by better theory it is a
corroborated theory. (Basically, all the knowledge should be seen as preliminary, as what we now think is true
could be proven false tomorrow.)
Justified belief: belief, but justified, because the knowledge is obtained and tested in the best possible way (we
know).
Hypothetico-deductive method: Most simply, a hypothesis is proposed, and consequences are deduced, which
are then tested against experience. If the hypothesis is falsified, then we learn from the attempt, and are in a
position to produce a better one. If not, then we can try other tests.
Falsifiable hypothesis: a hypothesis that is tested to determine if an event or observation can be proven to be
false based on scientific observation or investigation.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Critique of critical rationalism (critique on the critique)
●​
●​
●​
(Condition C)​
​
(General law L)​ ​
(Inference I)​
​
: this water has been heated to 100 degrees.
: if water is heated to 100 degrees, it will boil.
: this water boils.
What if the water doesn’t boil to 100 degrees? Is it the pan it is in? Is it the thermometer with which you measure
it? Is it the person reading it off wrong on the thermometer?
Basically: before rejecting the law (L), try to eliminate all the other possible sources of errors.
Summary: A single piece of research or experiment generally does not lead to a rejection of a law or a
hypothesis. There is always the possibility of measurement errors or hypotheses that were incorrectly derived, or
other methodological mistakes, but it could also turn out that the law only holds under specific circumstances, as
we have seen.
The D-N Model: Deductive-Nomological Model uses the
Deterministic law: always when I execute A, B will be the consequence. ​
The I-S Model: Inductive-Statistical Model uses the
Stochastic law: probably when I execute A, B will be the consequence. (does not reject the law).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Causality: one leads to the other, like lightning causes thunder.
Types of concepts (of statements)
a)​ Individual versus universal
b)​ Empirical versus non-empirical
Individual concepts (Mars): refer to one particular object. ​
Universal concepts (planet): refer to a class of objects. (focusing at commonalities), e.g houses, states​
All houses are to live, sleep, eat with a family but different sizes and forms. All states have borders, inhabitants,
government, etc. but all in different shapes and sizes and places.
7
Critique
Empirical-analytical condition: law-like statements which are mostly based on the way research is conducted
in the natural sciences and emphasises quantification and measurement.
Nomothetic view: always when X is the case, Y will also be the case. (idiographic view of science)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Empirical concepts: what can be immediately observed in reality. (immediately or can be deduced through only
a couple of completely clear steps).
Non-empirical concepts: concepts that don’t refer to experiential reality.
a)​ Logical/mathematical concepts → triangle/circle, which can’t be empirically observed as it is a
mathematical/geometrical structure.
b)​ Hypothetical concepts → (explanatory concept) → assume the existence of something, which is not
observable nor can they be deduced from observables in a transparent manner and/or can they be
reduced to these observables. Like gravity or a magnetic field.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Types of statements
●​ Singular (one), particular (some) and universal (all)
●​ Factual and normative (value of judgement)
●​ Static (particular moment of time) and dynamic (change in time, 2 points, revels process over time)
●​ Descriptive (what it is) and explanatory (why it is).
Singular statement: this person is neurotic.
Particular statement: some organisations have a bureaucratic structure.
Universal statement: all humans are mortal, politicians are corrupt.
​
Universal condition: If-then - for all X holds: if X is a Y (human), then X also has Z (mortality).
Factual statements: an event or situation which is known or proved to be true.
Normative statements: expresses a value judgement (should or ought to): politicians should adhere to the law,
students ought to spend more time on their study.
Static statements: a situation at a particular moment in time - cross-sectional. It is currently raining, it was raining
yesterday.
Dynamic statements: reveals a change (process) over time - longitudinal. The profit is increasing.
Descriptive statements: Explains what, not why. All dogs can run, all people have ears.
Prescriptive statements: helps in finding means to improve an undesirable situation. If you want to prevent
injuries, make sure to stretch before you lift.
Explanatory statements: Explains how something works to appeal to the tendency of people to understand
phenomena. This piece of Iron expanded, because it was heated.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
D-N Model: Deductive-Nomological model: The conclusion follows logically from the law and condition. ​
Explanandum (that which needs explanation) is deduced from the explanans (that which explains).
●​ If water is heated to 100 degrees it will boil (general law - L) → ​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Explanans: consisting of
●​ This water is heated to 100 degrees (condition - C) → ​
​
2 premises​
​
●​ This water boils (Inference: I)​
​
​
​
​
Explanandum
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Prediction: not predicting the future, but by understanding that the planets move in their orbits, you can predict
how they will behave in the future.
Explanation: explaining what is happening.
8
Example:
●​ More motivated employees have a higher labour productivity (explained) ●​ If employees are better rewarded financially, they will be more motivated (prediction)
●​ Hence: if employees are better rewarded financially, they will produce more.
Deterministic law: if you smoke you get cancer (not true, but example)​
All A’s contract X
Probabilistic law: smoking increases chances of lung cancer, but not everyone who smokes will get it.
Of all A’s, 80% will contract X.
9