NON-SCIENTIFIC WAYS OF OBTAINING KNOWLEDGE
1. COMMON SENSE: that which is self-evident
2. TENACITY: what we have known to be true in the past —
holds firmly to beliefs because "it has always been so"
3. AUTHORITY: established belief based on prominence or
importance of source
4. INTUITION: something that just "stands to reason" — use of
rational processes with benefit of experience
5. METAPHYSICS: investigates principles of reality
(visible and invisible), the essence of things.
Construct theories on the basis of a priori
knowledge, that is, knowledge derived from
reason alone.
6. RATIONALISM: criterion of truth is not sensory
but intellectual and deductive.
7. EMPIRICISM: relying on the "observable“;
through one's own experience
8. SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Research Methods in the Social
Sciences
• The social sciences have adopted the
scientific method as a way of “knowing”
– Empirical (rather than normative)
– Objective (rather than subjective)
– Systematic (rather than random)
– Rigorous (meticulous, painstaking)
This method has evolved from a very long
debate about truth and knowledge.
• Socrates (469-399 BCE): “I know that I know
nothing”
• Aresilaus (314-241 BCE) said he was not even
certain that he was uncertain.
• Carneades (213-128 BCE) knowledge and truth
is impossible.
• Sextus Empiricus (CE 200) science based on
reason or logic is not to be trusted. Experiences
is our best guide.
• Pyrrho (365-275 BCE): one must neither trust
nor reject your senses.
For many centuries, intellectuals who were
interested in knowledge hoped that if
scientific inquiry could become sufficiently
empirical, it could be our best guide to
certitude or, at least, probability.
From these early thinkers came the early
modern effort to establish an empirical
“scientific method.” This way of thinking
had great influence on the scientific
revolution of the 17th century.
Scientific Revolution
(16th & 17th Century)
• For example Galileo argued explicitly
against traditional Greek traditions and
against the principle of intellectual
authority. Facts are determined by nature,
not by books or men-not even the pope.
• The authors of this time, rejecting
authority, believed that for the first time,
with proper method, the human mind was
looking on God’s work with understanding.
Francis Bacon (1561-1621)
– Natural philosophy (science) must be
separated from theology
– The method of induction, from particular
to the general, is tested by experiment
– Science is a dynamic, cooperative,
cumulative enterprise.
– Science is always self-correcting
Science and the Scientific Method
• This class, and much of our field, assumes
that the scientific method is the best
method for answering questions in the
physical, social, and political world.
• Not everyone is convinced that the
scientific method is obtainable or
appropriate, but before you reject the
approach you must first master it.
Why is a scientific approach better?
Even as far back as the pre-Socratics (6th/5th
centuries BCE) like the Milesian
physicists, who rejected the supernatural
and religious explanations, scholars have
argued for a more naturalistic and
scientific approach.
COMMON ERRORS IN HUMAN INQUIRY
1. INACCURATE OBSERVATION
2. OVERGENERALIZATION
3. SELECTIVE OBSERVATION
4. MADE-UP INFORMATION
5. ILLOGICAL REASONING
6. EGO-INVOLVEMENT IN UNDERSTANDING
7. PREMATURE CLOSURE OF INQUIRY
8. MYSTIFICATION OF RESIDUALS
Does the scientific method correct for
these common errors in human inquiry?
Yes and no. A systematic, rigorous, empirical,
approach can help avoid such problems,
especially if such an approach is embedded
in a philosophy of skepticism that requires
replication and verification.
But humans are the ones that conduct science
and because humans are imperfect, the
application of the methods may be imperfect
SOURCES OF ERROR IN RESEARCH
A. CENTER OF ATTENTION EFFECTS
1. Hawthorne Effect — The effect of being
studied and reacting favorably to the study. The
term comes from a series of experiments on
factory workers in the 1920s. The purpose was
to find the optimum level of lighting for
productivity.
• Study 1: no control group. The researchers experimented on
three different departments; all showed an increase of
productivity, whether illumination increased or decreased.
• Study 2: A control group had no change in lighting, while the
experimental group got a sequence of increasing light levels.
Both groups substantially increased production, and there
was no difference between the groups.
• Study 3: The researchers decided to see what would
happen if they decreased lighting. The control group got
stable illumination; the other got a sequence of decreasing
levels. Surprisingly, both groups steadily increased
production until finally the light in experimental group got so
low that they protested and production fell off.
• Study 4: This was conducted on two women only.
Their production stayed constant under widely
varying light levels. It was found that if the
experimenter said bright was good, they said they
preferred the light; the same was true when he
said dimmer was good.
• At this point, researchers realized that something
else besides lighting was affecting productivity.
They suspected that the supervision of the
researchers had some effect, so they ended the
illumination experiments in 1927.
B.
SAMPLING AND SUBJECT SELECTION
1. Sample size and sampling frame —
number of cases, random selection,
representativeness (Dewey Defeats
Truman; Landon in a Landslide)
2. Mortality — loss of subjects during
the course of the research (School
Choice)
ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE
1. Systematic Investigation
2. Deterministic
3. Empirical/observable
4. Measurable
5. Ongoing
6. Skeptical
7. Public
8. Value-free
9. Logical
10. Probabilistic reasoning
Do these assumptions hold?
A.
VALUE FREE?
personal values/interests
interpretation of results
funding agencies
B.
PRACTICAL ISSUES: Time, Money, Situation
C.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
voluntary participation
confidentiality/anonymity
concealment of research identity
D.
POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
objectivity and ideology
effect of research on legislation, spending,
creation of programs
Critics of the Scientific Method
Post-positivists
• Objectivity is impossible
• Observations are skewed by your
perceptions
• Knowledge is still often based on authority
• Subjectivity and values are not necessarily
a bad thing
Course Objectives:
• Understand the purpose and process of
the scientific method.
• Obtain a familiarity with a variety of
research designs and methodologies.
• Obtain a familiarity with statistical analysis
of data
• Prepare a research design for a future
project (i.e., a MA thesis)